Bits are Bits…Net Neutrality

But they say we'll all be better off this way (as they cut new content, innovation, consumer choice)

But they say we’ll all be better off this way (as they cut new content, innovation, consumer choice) – Imgur.com

What is net neutrality?

At its simplest, net neutrality holds that just as phone companies can’t check who’s on the line and selectively block or degrade the service of callers, everyone on the internet should start on roughly the same footing: ISPs shouldn’t slow down services, block legal content, or let companies pay for their data to get to customers faster than a competitor’s.

In this case, we’re also talking about a very specific policy: the Open Internet Order, which the FCC adopted in 2010. Under the order, wired and wireless broadband providers must disclose how they manage network traffic. Wired providers can’t block lawful content, software, services, or devices, and wireless providers can’t block websites or directly competing apps. And wired providers can’t “unreasonably discriminate” in transmitting information. The FCC has been trying in one way or another to implement net neutrality rules since 2005.

That was in the sidebar from The Verge’s article from May 14, 2014 called GAME OF PHONES: HOW VERIZON IS PLAYING THE FCC AND ITS CUSTOMERS

So very important!

Much more in the article.

I found that when I was reading a more recent article by arstechnica called Report: Verizon FiOS claimed public utility status to get government perks:

“It’s the secret that’s been hiding in plain sight,” said Harold Feld, senior VP of consumer advocacy group Public Knowledge and an expert on the FCC and telecommunications. “At the exact moment that these guys are complaining about how awful Title II is, they are trying to enjoy all the privileges of Title II on the regulated side.”

“There’s nothing illegal about it,” Feld, who wasn’t involved in writing the report, told Ars. However, “as a political point this is very useful.”

The FCC classifies broadband (such as FiOS) as an information service under Title I of the Communications Act, resulting in less strict rules than the ones applied to common carrier services (such as the traditional phone system) under Title II. But since both services are delivered over the same wire, Verizon FiOS is able to reap the benefits of utility regulation without the downsides.

Much more in this article as well.

Bits are bits. This is the point I have been pushing. Like water companies, electric companies and even telcos. There should be no fast lanes. There should be no place where they discriminate between bits. They are the water or electric company of the Internet. they provide the pipes that the data rides through. They should be simply providing the bits and not discriminating between them.

If they start discriminating between the bits, they set themselves up as the gatekeepers of the Internet. It opens the door to invasion of privacy and discrimination. It also stifles innovation by making it easier for big business to control the industry. It makes it exponentially harder for the next “Google” or “Yahoo” or other disruptive innovation to take off. If Google or Yahoo had to pay for fast lanes for their customers in the early days of the Internet, they never would have made it out of the gate. Neither will the next innovative and disruptive technology. And we will all be the losers if that happens. It will also make it harder for small businesses in general that might have an online component to their business to provide competitive services because they can’t afford to pay for those fast lanes. This will be true of small businesses that provide remote services as well as hosting, etc.

I think it is very important to contact the FCC and submit your thoughts on this very important issue of Net Neutrality which will affect us all in one way or another. Even if we are just users of the Internet, we will also feel the monetary impact, as well as freedom and privacy impact, and innovation impact. We always do.

What Do You Want Your Representatives to Ask Chairman Wheeler About Net Neutrality? – EFF.org:

Thus, Congress has an important role to play in the struggle for a neutral Internet. We know that members of the subcommittee are planning to re-write the Communications Act, and we know that letters from Congress members aren’t taken lightly by the FCC in the rulemaking process. That means it’s time to let our elected officials and the FCC know that we will fight to protect the future of our open Internet.

Here are three ways to join the debate and have your voice heard:

  1. Today, tweet your questions for FCC Chairman Wheeler during the Communications and Technology Subcommittee hearing using the hashtag #AskWheeler.
  2. Call your representative. Let’s be clear: any rules that allow Internet providers to discriminate against how we access websites would be a disaster for the open Internet.
  3. Submit comments in the FCC official rulemaking process. We’ve made it easy with our DearFCC.org public comment tool. It’s time to fill the FCC’s Open Internet docket with our voices and our stories. After all, it’s our Internet.

There are no easy solutions. But the FCC and Congress both want and need to hear from us. So let’s give them what they ask for. Let’s defend our Internet.

A wave out to all my Google+ friends

[tweetmeme source=”franscomputerservices” only_single=false]And other Google+ users who might soon be wondering where I went…

EDIT 9/6/2011: In the comments, I continue to add articles. I hope to have this be a pretty inclusive list of articles on this issue. If you know of one I have missed please feel free to leave a comment with the link. Thanks!

I have found that as much as I absolutely love Google+ the ‘social network’ — now known to be an ‘identity service’, I am leaving on 9/9 along with some others that have identified 9/9 as the day to leave. Hopefully it will have some impact even if it’s only a small overall number of users. But more than anything, I hope it will have a lasting impression regardless on how dangerous ‘identity services’ appearing to be ‘social networks’ can be.

Google has determined that Google+ aka Google Plus or G+ is to be an ‘identity service’ and that Google/Google+ require your real/common name not a pseudonym, pen name, stage name but only western style two name real/common names apparently.

Some may say so what. But others will know that this is a major issue and has been since Facebook started this trend. Here‘s my Google+ posting on this and this one reshared from Tom Anderson both which will be gone after 9/9.

Not to mention the fact that Google+ is linked to things like your GMail account, Google Search, Picasa, Youtube, Google maps/location data, Android apps purchases, and so much more — and even more of Google’s offerings as time goes on (and boy do they have a lot of social types of offerings or apps). And if you don’t like that and decide to leave G+, you are prompted to remove all, what they call connections to their ‘social apps’ linked to your G+ GMail account.

“Just go somewhere else” is a fallacy. The name policy stretches far beyond Google+, and here’s why. (Todd Vierling on Google+)

Here’s just a couple early articles the weekend when Google started arbitrarily disabling accounts:

Google+ and the loss of online anonymity by Matthew Ingram (GigaOm)

Update: Complaints mount over Google+ account deletions by Juan Carlos Perez (Computerworld)

Dutch researcher downloads 35 million Google Profiles (State of Search)

So what’s the big deal? First, it’s a great security risk for users. Especially normal/average users since many business users already have their ‘real’ name out there and it’s part of their branding. I actually am one who has done just that. Fran Parker is Fran’s Computer Services and this posting is on my Fran’s Computer Services blog. And technically Fran Parker is a common variation on my real name, but that is ‘allowable’ on G+ because it is how I am commonly known. Also, there is some arbitrariness about it all too. If disabled users can ‘prove’ who they are, or can ‘prove’ that they have a ‘valid’ reason for allowing the ‘pseudonym’ to those at Google/G+ who handle complaints or vetting of those who want to try to get reinstated, you can be back in their good graces.

However I am leaving Google+ — and don’t get me wrong — it would certainly benefit me to stay on G+ and let their new service benefit my business networking online. Instead, I am leaving Google+.

My name is Clo | My Name Is Me

My name is Albatross | My Name Is Me

Why? I am leaving because Google has decided to build G+ as an identity service — in some ways like Facebook, but not really since G+ is a public profile server — yes, you can hide nearly everything but your public posts or responses to public posts, your +1 (think: Facebook Like), AND you can’t hide your real/common name because they make that public — and Google has changed the rules on their services so they can now link you, by name, and even by what you put in the field for ‘also known as’, or ‘nicknames’ field, on every one of their services and boy do they have a lot of services. And if you don’t believe me, try this. Especially if you are a member of Google+, search on your name, particularly your Google+ profile name.

Will cyberthugs exploit Google Plus ‘identity service’ for spear phishing attacks? by Darlene Storm (Computerworld)

What’s the big deal, you say? Oh, nothing much accept that by doing this, they have made each and every one of us a bigger phishing, actually more like spear phishing, and/or unethical hacking/cracking target by linking everything we do or say online. For business users whose names are linked to their branding, they live with that day in and day out and it’s a major pain, but they made that decision to deal with that consciously at some point. But the average user? I don’t think the average or normal user needs or wants those types of hassles. OK, so maybe you say, So what? It’s a greater security risk for users. You can be targeted so much easier by linking so much about yourself online. And there is this to think about:

Google fined in Brazil for refusing to reveal bloggers’ identities (TheNextWeb)

OK, and if that wasn’t bad enough. By limiting the ability to use pseudonyms, stage names, pen names, non-English Western civilization name standards, etc., Google is cutting of their nose to spite their face. And some folks have been known by nothing else but a pseudonym, pen name or stage name online for as much as 20+ years, by the way. But that’s OK, they don’t really want to be everyone’s Google+ friend, they obviously just want to make more money.

Why do I say that? Because all of this linking is data they can market with, sell to others in corporations, governments, highest bidder, whatever — in aggregate form of course, like Facebook does. Facebook makes a bundle on this already and Google apparently wants a piece of that action…well a bigger piece. Besides they already know you. Now they are getting your permission to basically track you further, and use more of your data that you share with them….errr, enter on their services, like Google+.

Also, but many of us have been working against abuse of marketing crap since Steve Gibson created OptOut when he became aware of the crap that was going on in the early days of computing online on the Internet. Marketing which was more like spyware than benign advertising in the newspapers or magazines where they can’t track you!

OK, enough about that side of things. Now on to the other side. The discrimination, the arbitrary decisions to disable accounts and require proof of who they are or the changing of their ‘name’ to something more western or 1st world or whatever you want to call it … two name (first and last name) like western countries do. Which is not at all like real/common names in other parts of the world.

Also, some folks really do need to use a pseudonym, or alternative name, stage name, pen name …whatever you want to call it. And many people in this type of situation would rightfully feel this is a discrimination against women. Many women have been stalked, have had abusive spouses or coworkers/bosses or have spouses or jobs where it would be ‘inconvenient’ (like they could lose their job or their spouses job for them or their position), if they were not able to speak out anonymously through a pseudonym.

There are so many angles on this issue. It was wrong when Facebook did it and it’s even more wrong (if there is such a thing) for Google to do it. Why is it more wrong for Google? Because we have higher expectations of Google. They have always tried to ‘do no evil’ in the past and now they will be right in the middle of it. Was ‘do no evil’ only to get people to trust them? Like Apple with their ‘think different’ and revolution anti-big brother stance in their 1984 commercial? But all the time they had other plans?

If you are not familiar, and it would likely be easy not to be familiar if you are not on G+ aka Google Plus service or have friends that are. Since it is an invite only ‘field test’ at the moment anyway, many would be not involved. But many geeks, technicians, artists, artisans, journalists, etc. are on it to help improve it and try it out as the new kid on the block in social networking. I have been one of these folks for some time now. First with a pseudonym which was quickly squashed through either someone turning me in for having a pseudonym or their algorithm bot got me because the name was obviously not a real name, and after that was disabled, I decided to come back as my business name.

Here are some, and just a few really of the articles that address the issues better than I could ever do:

Understanding the Nym Wars (BoingBoing) with several links and some great commentary


A Case for Pseudonyms (EFF.org)


Google+ Identity Crisis: What’s at Stake With Real Names and Privacy (Wired.com)

Violet Blue: just one of her many postings about Pseudonyms on G+ and she has a legitimate gripe and one of her articles on ZDNet


“Real Names” Policies Are an Abuse of Power (danah boyd blog)


Tracking the Nym Wars (G+ Insider’s Guide)

On Pseudonymity, Privacy and Responsibility on Google+ – Kee Hinkley

Why It’s Important To Turn the Tide on Google’s Real Name Policy (Botgirl’s Second Life Diary blog)

Who is harmed by a “Real Names” policy? (GeekFeminism – Wikia.com) (and related Pseudonymity article).

Who is harmed by a “Real Names” policy?

This page lists groups of people who are disadvantaged by any policy which bans Pseudonymity and requires so-called “Real names” (more properly, legal names).

This is an attempt to create a comprehensive list of groups of people who are affected by such policies.

The cost to these people can be vast, including:

  • harassment, both online and offline
  • discrimination in employment, provision of services, etc.
  • actual physical danger of bullying, hate crime, etc.
  • arrest, imprisonment, or execution in some jurisdictions
  • economic harm such as job loss, loss of professional reputation, reduction of job opportunity, etc.
  • social costs of not being able to interact with friends and colleagues
  • possible (temporary) loss of access to their data if their account is suspended or terminated

The groups of people who use pseudonyms, or want to use pseudonyms, are not a small minority (some of the classes of people who can benefit from pseudonyms constitute up to 50% of the total population, and many of the others are classes of people that almost everyone knows). However, their needs are often ignored by the relatively privileged designers and policy-makers who want people to use their real/legal names.


Nymwars – Wikipedia

The icing on the cake was Eric Schmidt the recent but former CEO of Google stating this (guess he can say anything now, eh?):

Eric Schmidt: Google+ Is An Identity Service; User Your Real Name Or Don’t Sign On (Huffington Post)

Schmidt: G+ ‘Identity Service,’ Not Social Network by David Gerard (slash dot or /.):

David Gerard writes
“Eric Schmidt has revealed that Google+ is an identity service, and the ‘social network’ bit is just bait. Schmidt says ‘G+ is completely optional,’ not mentioning that Google has admitted that deleting a G+ account will seriously downgrade your other Google services. As others have noted, Somewhere, there are two kids in a garage building a company whose motto will be ‘Don’t be Google.‘”

And here’s one I missed that I just saw over at Google+ on Nom DeB‘s profile posts:

Google+ Can Be A Social Network Or The Name Police – Not Both by Bob Blakley at Gartner Blogs

Really all you need to do to find out more about this is to search on Google or any other search engine for any number of combinations of words in this article.

Now we even have a place for Google Refuges to be able to link up after they leave Google+.

EDIT: grammer/clarity and to add Bob Blakley’s Gartner blog article. Also almost forgot my TWEETMEME link, and Added Todd Vierling’s “Just go somewhere else” is a fallacy. The name policy stretches far beyond Google+, and here’s why.”

We love you Facebook but privacy and security are important

[tweetmeme source=”franscomputerservices” only_single=false]UPDATED 5/22/2010*, 5/23/2010**: EDIT: Added additional links

Yes, most of us do love our Facebook, or at least we enjoy the feature set and keeping in easy contact with our friends and family, but some of us feel that it is not worth the expense of our privacy and security and potential malware infections due to rogue apps on our own or others’ accounts. But Facebook privacy concerns are heating up. Or the risks from other sites getting at our data:

New security hole in Facebook through Yelp (here on our blog last week, apparently fixed now)
, or having our chats exposed to people other than those we are talking to, even if they are our friends.

So, you think Facebook is safe? Hmmm. Really?

* Hackers can delete Facebook friends, thanks to flaw (By Robert McMillan at ITWorld May 21, 2010):

A bug in Facebook’s Web site lets hackers delete Facebook friends without permission.

The flaw was reported Wednesday by Steven Abbagnaro, a student at Marist College in Poughkeepsie, New York. But as of Friday morning, Pacific time, it had still not been patched, based on tests conducted by the IDG News Service on a reporter’s Facebook friends list.

* Fake joke worm wriggles through Facebook (By John Leydon at The Register May 21, 2010)

Shifty sorts have created a new worm which spread rapidly on Facebook on Friday.

The malware, for now at least, does nothing more malicious than posting a message on an infected user’s Facebook wall that point to a site called fbhole.com. Nonetheless, the speed of its spread on the social networking site has net security experts worried.

* Facebook Fixing Embarrassing Privacy Bug (by Robert McMillan at NYTimes on May 19, 2010):

Facebook is fixing a Web programming bug that could have allowed hackers to alter profile pages or make restricted information public.

Facebook Violates Privacy Promises, Leaks User Info to Advertisers (by Tim Jones at Electronic Frontier Foundation May 21, 2010):

A Wall Street Journal article today draws attention to yet another unexpected way in which Facebook’s privacy practices have not complied with its public statements and have disregarded users’ privacy rights. Just last week, when asked about Facebook’s privacy practices with advertisers, Facebook executive Elliot Schrage wrote:

We don’t share your information with advertisers. Our targeting is anonymous. We don’t identify or share names. Period.

As the Wall Street Journal report shows, this was not true. In fact, Facebook’s architecture at the time allowed advertisers to see detailed personal information about some Facebook users.

Much more in the article! Must read.

** Facebook privacy: Zuckerberg overruled? (By Richi Jennings at Computerworld IT Blogwatch May 19, 2010)

** Facebook Leaks Usernames, User IDs, and Personal Details to Advertisers (By privacy advocate Ben Edelman at BenEdelman.org on May 20, 2010):

Browse Facebook, and you wouldn’t expect Facebook’s advertisers to learn who you are. After all, Facebook’s privacy policy and blog posts promise not to share user data with advertisers except when users grant specific permission. For example, on April 6, 2010 Facebook’s Barry Schnitt promised: “We don’t share your information with advertisers unless you tell us to (e.g. to get a sample, hear more, or enter a contest). Any assertion to the contrary is false. Period.”

My findings are exactly the contrary: Merely clicking an advertiser’s ad reveals to the advertiser the user’s Facebook username or user ID. With default privacy settings, the advertiser can then see almost all of a user’s activity on Facebook, including name, photos, friends, and more.

In this article, I show examples of Facebook’s data leaks. I compare these leaks to Facebook’s privacy promises, and I point out that Facebook has been on notice of this problem for at least eight months. I conclude with specific suggestions for Facebook to fix this problem and prevent its reoccurrence.

The sexiest video ever? Facebook users hit by Candid Camera Prank attack (Graham Cluley’s Sophos Blog)

MASSIVE FACEBOOK ATTACK OVER THE WEEKEND (posted May 17, 2010 by Roger Thompson, AVG Blogs)

Facebook CEO’s latest woe: accusations of securities fraud (VentureBeat posted May 19, 2010 by Owen Thomas)

I sure hope that the BBC report is correct, “Facebook looks likely to cave into pressure from users and simplify its privacy settings in the near future.” But other places are saying Facebook is just simplifying the existing privacy settings.

I don’t think there are many people who have experienced Facebook that don’t love most of the features on Facebook–at least the ones that help you keep in contact with your friends and family, and share (on the Facebook site) your photos, videos, links to articles of interest, chatting, direct messaging, posting between yours and your friends/family members walls, sharing in holidays, or fun, happy, sad conversations, and more. But, Facebook is wrong about privacy – it really is still very important. It is important and for more reasons than many may think. Even the Wall Street Journal has acknowledged that Facebook, MySpace and other social networking sites are having to confront the privacy loophole.

But, when the trust that Facebook used to get people to sign up in the first place (a trust that your privacy is important to Facebook and will be protected by default – unlike MySpace, et al) is breached by that very same service, then there is a problem.

If you don’t remember the early days of Facebook, many of us do. Facebook did made claims that they would protect our privacy by default, that our privacy was important to Facebook. Zuckerberg made these ‘claims’ when they were trying to woo millions of MySpace’s users over to Facebook in Facebook’s early days. It worked too.

Privacy by default. What is that exactly? When Facebook started out and pushing to try to gain membership, and about the time that MySpace went through a huge privacy fiasco because new users had to immediately change their privacy settings if they didn’t want the whole world to see all their information (it was all public by default on MySpace). And many users, just like many new users at Facebook, didn’t know to change their settings, or even think about it. Many users were just not that savvy to know why it was even important to share only some information with the world/public. Or even understand why that might be a prudent move. But due to the marketing used by Facebook, people started to understand that privacy was important and they wanted their friends and family to be in a ‘safer’ environment. A place where they could connect and share with each other without concern that their data would be made public. After all, Mark Zuckerberg said he did care about our privacy (unlike the other guys).

Then after Facebook gets all these users, and gets them used to the convenience and ‘hooked’ on the service, THEN Facebook just seems to keep changing the rules — little by little — chipping away at the privacy and security standards that got them all the users in the first place. Not long after I finally joined Facebook, they went through this pretty big, and I actually deactivated my account at that time too. When Facebook changed their tune, I came back. Now they are doing it again, and even though I really enjoyed the service, I felt the need to again deactivate my account.

So, tell me, why would Facebook be surprised when users get up in arms about all these changes, especially in light of other security problems and vulnerabilities within their newest ‘features’ as well as their existing features? One group has even created a Facebook Group entitled, “1,000,000 Strong to leave Facebook by July 4 unless FB respects our privacy is on Facebook” (See there can be appropriate public facing things on Facebook). And EFF’s various articles enlightening folks about the changes and affects of those changes and how you can mitigate them, at least most of the problems.

Features are a great thing except when the service starts to change your privacy settings for you, and they don’t bother to tell you about it until after they have done it. That is a real problem of trust, because, if even for a short time, your data is left to the search engine spiders to start indexing data that shouldn’t have been made ‘public’ in the first place without user permission.

So, then users start complaining, and getting no satisfaction from the service because the changes they made will make them a ton of money, so some users start deactivating their accounts — many users are upset with Facebook, and for good reason. A basic trust was broken and it wasn’t by the users.

But privacy issues are not the only issues. There are also other security issues as well; vulnerabilities and more vulnerabilities. And only God knows how many more vulnerabilities are known by the bad guys that expose users’ data that are not yet known to the good guys.

I had already checked and reset all my privacy settings multiple times since December 2009 when this fiasco starting getting into high gear, even before the now known vulnerabilities that still put users at risk made me say, ‘enough is enough’. I still struggled with the decision before I decided I could put it off no longer. Even the benefits for business, family and friends wasn’t worth security risks not only directly but indirectly by friends who might get hit with these vulnerabilities, or the potential for unwise decisions about their accounts where their data might overlap with mine.

It is not an easy thing to make a decision to deactivate, or go through the hoops (or even find a link to get information) on deleting your Facebook account. Especially when you enjoy the service. And the service really is a good service, if not for the bad decisions about security and privacy have caused, and of course there are those related vulnerabilities. Sure they fix the vulnerabilities when they are made public, but how long was your data, your information, exposed through these vulnerabilities before it was brought to light?

The Consumerist actually did an article on deleting your Facebook account since it’s not easy to find. It’s entitled, “Delete Your Facebook Account Forever” by Ben Popken (April 20, 2010).

And if you think they will figure out all the vulnerabilities and then it will be safe, think again. Facebook is 440 Million strong and growing. Just like the huge bullseye target on Microsoft’s Windows’ back, Facebook is the biggest target in Social Networking. Too big for the bad guys to let it alone. It’s a treasure trove of information (and not just aggregate information like Facebook sells, oh, no, this is the actual connections, the actual information linked to individual people that’s at risk). Between the vulnerabilities, as well as some decisions by users regarding Friends, their choices of third party Facebook apps, and their privacy settings, this could become a real nightmare, very quickly, and for some it already has.

Have you ever thought how much information about you is actually public on Facebook? Or even on the Internet in general? What about your family and friend connections, or business connections? What about your choices regarding purchases, what you like or dislike? Do you want them made public? And Facebook has much of that information in one place just ripe for the picking. And who would want to pick that information? Even in aggregate form it is very valuable data, but to bad guys, it is fodder for social engineering, phishing attempts in email, potential ways to get malware on your system by presenting it as though it is from people you are friends with, and so much more.

It’s an especially hard decision when you have gotten used to keeping in contact with friends and family through one particular service via browsers and mobile devices. And it really is great to have a place where your family pictures (your children and grandchildren, travel/trips, conversations between many friends and family, and so much more), are right at your fingertips and can be posted, responded to, and still be safe from the prying eyes of the general public. At least that’s how it was, or at least we thought it was.

Of course, Facebook makes it even more difficult to make the choice to deactivate or delete your account. When you choose to deactivate, which by the way, doesn’t actually delete your data (in case you want to come back), Facebook tries to use emotional blackmail, err, pressure to try to keep you from deactivating your account. As you are trying to deactivate, they show you some pictures of your ‘friends’ and talk about how you won’t be able to contact your friends and family anymore, or your friends and family won’t be able to contact you anymore. As if Facebook is the ONLY way to contact your friends and family?! It might make it easier, but it’s not the ONLY way to keep in contact with your friends and family.

Also, note that Facebook doesn’t allow you to delete your own account on your own — you have to actually contact them directly to ask them to delete your account — as if you were an errant child who couldn’t be trusted to do this on your own?! Even MySpace and other social networking sites let you delete your own account!

Oh, no. This is not about whether you would be able to delete your account, this is about another attempt to coerce you to stay with Facebook. Besides they don’t actually delete your data, oh, no. They still make use of that data in aggregate form, it’s just not linked by your name supposedly, after your account is deleted:

How Companies Are Using Your Social Media Data (by Leah Betancourt at Mashable)

Facebook Data Mining: Not Just for Advertisers Anymore (SCI Social Capital Inc.)

More on Facebook, Privacy & Data Mining (by Greg Sterling at ScreenWerk)

data-extraction-facebook (Google Code website)

End of Year Data: Facebook Currently Leads (Data Mining: Text Mining, Visualization and Social Media)

Facebook Data Reveal Secrets of American Culture (by Matt Safford at LiveScience)

Microsoft Inks Twitter, Facebook Data Mining Deal (by Jennifer Martinez at GIGAOM October 21, 2010)

The Man Who Looked Into Facebook’s Soul (by Marshall Kirkpatrick at ReadWriteWeb February 8, 2010)

Even though it has been stated that at least 60% of users are upset and are actually considering one of these options (deactivation or deletion of their account), with over 400 million active users worldwide and over $300USD million in annual revenue (estimated in 2008) and ranked #2 site on the Internet in May 2010 according to Alexa, does Facebook even care? Have we just become so much advertising and data mining fodder that translate to hundreds of Millions of dollars annually (Billions over time) for Mark Zuckerberg and company? Is that what it was all about from the beginning? If some articles are to be believed, Mark Zuckerberg may have played a good game when he told us he was concerned about our privacy right from the beginning.

And we even have some who think that malware and hacking haven’t caught up with it all on Facebook … yet. But I think we have determined that this is not really the case.

So, even with all that, maybe you still feel it’s safe to continue to with Facebook, what next? There are some very good places to study up on how to make yourself as safe as possible, and understand the account and privacy settings, and their implications, and how they interact with each other and with your friends and the public. Things like ReclaimPrivacy and others are cropping up to help folks deal with their Facebook privacy that is so complex. Who knows if this will be squashed by Facebook, but it could help out right now to help get your settings set.

WindowsSecret’s Complimentary portion of their Newsletter has an excellent article by Scott Mace called, “Tighten your Facebook privacy settings” with a great outline of the various areas and some great thoughts on how to keep yourself as safe as you can be on Facebook.


Facebook Security | Facebook Privacy | Best Practices at Sophos
(be sure to read through all the pages listed on the right side – like WindowsSecrets, Sophos goes through all the different facets of Facebook)

Fast Company also has an article to help called, “Online Privacy: Check Yourself Before You Wreck Yourself

It’s your life, it’s your data, it’s your choice…what will you do?

UPDATED 5/22/2010*, 5/23/2010**: EDIT: Added additional links