[nkwiatek]

> this all goes into a FB database somewhere, which who knows has access to it, or backups to it. Enjoy being harvested voluntarily.

Are you being ironic with a statement like this, or are you serious?

The second there's even so much as a bug that affects some obscure privacy setting, the TechCrunch pitchforks are out, and the brand is on the line. Do you really think that FB is just gonna let anyone rummage through their user's private data, just, you know, for fun? Can you even imagine how damaging that would be? Why do you think FB blows millions of dollars on engineer salaries to work on privacy features — which you just dismiss in a sentence like they're nothing?

The way I see it, you're already in a database somewhere, many of them, but the difference is you don't have access to that data — you don't even know what data exists, where. Facebook comes along and says "OK, fine, we'll play along, except we'll let the users decide what data they provide, and we'll try to help them benefit from it as much as possible" — and suddenly, Facebook's the bad guy. All the government, banking, insurance, direct mail databases out there and people have to go after FB, where every click has an associated privacy setting. It boggles the mind.

[edibrac]

I believe that it's within reason that FB's internal controls are lax (like any other company) depending on what sort of access you have as an employee, contractor or family member of an employee ... or even a friend. It's totally possible for an internal employee to forget to encrypt a drive, or leave a backup somewhere of something. Or if a friend borrowed the password of an employee. I even think it's totally within reason that an employee could be paid off if the (extreme) situation deemed it necessary.

"OK, fine, we'll play along, except we'll let the users decide what data they provide, and we'll try to help them benefit from it as much as possible"

...sure that applies to the outer shell of it, and the official public stance. What else happens internally?

Disclaimer: my comments just are a result of trying to think critically. I could be totally/partially incorrect or correct. I do believe there is a truth out there about it, but that it's not in FB's interest to be super upfront.

[naisu]

Disclaimer: I work for fb.

Do you really think Facebook employees are wandering around town with backups of user data? That's completely ridiculous.

Facebook takes privacy very seriously. You Facebook data is no less safe than using Gmail for your email (as an example).

[edibrac]

I took time to word what I said, to match what I mean. It seems that what you read, were ones that you seem to have injected in.

It would be nice to know exactly what precautions are taken to prevent access from insiders. You may work for FB, but is storage or backups part of your role? Not that I think you have to be, how would I know as an outsider. Maybe as a developer you know how things are setup, and how well people adhere to policies.

And I'm curious, what are those? If users' data is taken seriously then wouldn't they make difficult to prevent casual snooping across the database? So that even if you had root access you couldn't get to it as an insider?

Probably not. The data is meant to feed an ad/marketing machine so, how locked down could the data be internally?

I don't expect these questions to be answered, but just throwing them out there in an attempt to reason things out.

[alttab]

The way I see it is this: Would I invite Mark Zuckerberg to be permanently and pervasively privy to my friends, my conversations with them, and all of my pictures?

Seriously - Facebook is Zucker's brain-child in that it face-scans, categorizes, and picks apart your words and photos. Its like inviting Zucker himself into your photo-album, allowing him to think and learn more about you while you are away.

Facebook is fucking creepy. I want a place I can go to have conversations with my friends privately, not a place I can put all of my friends conversations and hope that it doesn't get disclosed somehow later.

[taligent]

You could well need help with paranoia this strong.

Mark Zuckerberg is not going through your friends, conversations and photos. Nor is anybody else other than you and your friends. In fact due to its design your emails would be far easier to 'read' than Facebook would be.

[alttab]

Just because he isn't going it personally, doesn't mean that backend processes and features designed by him aren't fully automated. Thats almost worse - a robot Zuckers spying on me. At least if he was doing it himself he wouldn't be doing it perfectly and constantly.

Personally, I dont want a middle man for every social interaction. Then I don't own my relationships, Facecbook does.