[d0ne]

Wouldn’t say “Nobody”. It was obvious to enough folks in the privacy and security sectors. Facebook, along with others in that space, received view points from some of those concerned but made the decision to proceed as they did.

[SpicyLemonZest]

The privacy and security sectors are pretty consistently aware of ways things can go wrong. But they were overwhelmed at the time by the popular consensus, that openness is super important and it's terrible that social networking companies don't have more of it. Remember when Tim Berners-Lee criticized Facebook for not putting all your data on the public web? (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/8151101/tTim...)

[Andrex]

Did you read the article you linked?

You have a very uncharitable interpretation of Sir Berners-Lee's comments. He's railing against walled gardens being poor stewards of user data and having nonexistent data portability (as well as telcos violating net neutrality.)

Relevant then and even more relevant now. I see nothing about him wanting Facebook to enforce publicly-published profile data.

[SpicyLemonZest]

I’m not trying to pick on the guy. My memory is that this simply isn’t what data portability meant in 2010; data portability was widely understood to mean that there should be a public API to access any resources the Facebook web app will serve me. (Note how the article ties this into calls for Facebook to open up the social graph API.)