![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhs0uKa1p-fvmSpwKgU-yCny2PH1TxV6y2iPHY2RX3yyJFT3g_CRcN7KFHyIkSRZwbgtmAXhNzk8567BMZ_v_6rx6HXkZnBglesv1opariLK5iKSh0dyy9DRNQY87lpMdXcJp0A/s320/facebook-logo.jpg)
Facebook has banned Google's Friend Connect access to the Facebook API, saying:
Oh, that's a good one. As Michael Arrington of Tech Crunch says:
Arrington adds, tongue in cheek:
This is how it has been described:
There's a fine line between being supercautious and paranoid but this blog feels there are legitimate issues. Daviswiki gives a run down on some of the privacy issues ...
And Ian Parker said:
Given this organization's antecedents, given that it is an information gathering and disbursing machine to "trusted third parties", given that there is no unsubscribe function and given the really intrusive nature of the questioning they do on you, in a jaunty style of language, e.g. "what's the story here', it seems most unwise to allow any but the most perfunctory details to go to them.
At best you're going to be spammed. At worst, you are on a giant database to be used at their discretion. At least it is to be hoped that they're not incompetent, like these people:
Thunderdragon then goes on to explain.
We've found that it redistributes user information from Facebook to other developers without users' knowledge, which doesn't respect the privacy standards our users have come to expect and is a violation of our Terms of Service.
Oh, that's a good one. As Michael Arrington of Tech Crunch says:
Facebook is all about openness and data portability, as long as that doesn't involve openness or portability of data, it seems ...
Arrington adds, tongue in cheek:
This of course has nothing to do with the fact that Facebook launched their own nearly identically named product called Facebook Connect three days before Google's Friend Connect.
This is how it has been described:
Facebook announced its Facebook Connect, what it calls the "next iteration of Facebook Platform," which allowed third-party developers to develop social applications for the site. When it is rolled out ---also "in the coming weeks"-- participating sites will be able to share Facebook users' friends lists, their "real identities," photos, and videos.
There's a fine line between being supercautious and paranoid but this blog feels there are legitimate issues. Daviswiki gives a run down on some of the privacy issues ...
Facebook is commonly referred to as Stalkerbook, due to its many features that allows you to track people in your network, especially when you are friends with those people.
And Ian Parker said:
In an article on the organization some time back, Ian Grey commented:
Just remember who funded the building of Facebook and why it is there.
It was funded by DARPA's Information Awareness Office, and is there to collect information about you and build a profile on you.
Thats why they don't like pseudonyms.
Longrider summed up my thoughts when he commented:
I've deactivated. I did [this] after reading your first post and a bit of surfing about the dodgy stuff. This is when I realised I couldn't actually unsubscribe! I'm Still in LinkedLn and MySpace though.
As mentioned on your other post, I have never signed up to this "service" - nor have I signed up to MySpace. Nor will I ever. It's easy enough, should one try, to find out my real identity, but I reserve the right to publish under a pseudonym. And, frankly, any organisation (remember Blogburst?) that claims rights to my material can take a walk.
Given this organization's antecedents, given that it is an information gathering and disbursing machine to "trusted third parties", given that there is no unsubscribe function and given the really intrusive nature of the questioning they do on you, in a jaunty style of language, e.g. "what's the story here', it seems most unwise to allow any but the most perfunctory details to go to them.
At best you're going to be spammed. At worst, you are on a giant database to be used at their discretion. At least it is to be hoped that they're not incompetent, like these people:
Even if we ignore/excuse the massive amounts of lost data already by this government as institutional failings of the system and processes of the Civil Service rather than government ministers, these last two cannot be explained away like that.
Thunderdragon then goes on to explain.
Well, when you sign up for these things, you would be stupid to use your real name, even in emails. The most they can get is an email but all other details are false unless you tell those closest to you.
ReplyDelete>We've found that it redistributes user information
ReplyDeleteHeh. They don't say *when* they found that out.
When they designed the API, perhaps?
I am still on Facebook under my real name - but there is no real info about me there - nor any photo of me. I am also on as Mutts Dogley - a name they have not objected to yet!!
ReplyDeleteYes, I don't think it is actually the day to day usage which affects the punter here, their treatment by Facebook - it's the dissemination of info to other parties. If that's no problem to you, then that's no problem to you.
ReplyDeleteI'm just not sure I like the idea.
I have never been entirely happy with the thought of facebook. One of my TU colleagues just today was talking about me setting up a facebook group...
ReplyDelete