The few of you that care probably already know, but fb just completed a revamp of its messages system.

http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=452288242130

-Callahan

[Edited on November 15, 2010 at 4:46 PM. Reason : Gone]

11/15/2010 4:29:33 PM

How 'bout the few of us that know about it, but don't care? j/k

11/15/2010 5:28:06 PM

Touche!

11/15/2010 5:51:30 PM

facebook makes me feel so... mined?

11/15/2010 7:07:11 PM

let's just say this: The worlds #1 tech blog didn't bother covering it

11/15/2010 7:36:54 PM

i mean it's a cool idea, but facebook has, how should i say this, a "reputation" when it comes to privacy concerns. no way i'm sending any more messages than i have to with it.

11/15/2010 8:18:53 PM

Quote :

"let's just say this: The worlds #1 tech blog didn't bother covering it "

Out of curiosity, which tech blog are you referring to?

11/15/2010 8:28:47 PM

Engadget

11/15/2010 9:34:21 PM

engadget

and where are you getting all this #1 stuff from (just curious, not disputing)

11/15/2010 9:38:17 PM

Quote :

"let's just say this: The worlds #1 tech blog didn't bother covering it"

yeah they did

http://www.engadget.com/2010/11/15/facebook-launches-new-messaging-service-says-email-is-too-form/

11/15/2010 9:43:04 PM

Engadget had a front page image, linking to the livestream of the event ... Thats how I found it

What I did think was interesting about it was that it seems like the elitists in the valley and NY are snobby about who they "friend" on facebook .... whereas everyone else in the world just says yes to everyone they have ever heard of/met/seen somewhere .... plus some ...

So, when you create a product with the underlying motivation being that the only people who are your friends are people you actually care about and are intimate friends with ... but your actual users are much more liberal about it as a whole, you by the shear nature of your ignorance are going to create something that is a privacy nightmare.

I think thats the main problem with facebook. People use it as a place to acknowledge acquaintances ... not saying thats bad ... but if you then use default policies that assume a different behavior, you create problems.

11/15/2010 9:45:10 PM

Based solely on traffic via alexa ratings.

It should be noted, however, that if include the entire 'crunch' family of sites they give them a serious run for their money.


....but they're both owned by AOL, so really this is a giant pissing contest. And if you compared AOL holdings to the sole real competitor outside their realm (gizmodo) they beat the @#(& of them.

11/15/2010 9:47:51 PM

^^i'm talking about the facebook company storing images well past the time in which users "think" they deleted images... or how about changing the privacy policy without telling people, or changing settings without telling the users.

i'm not talking about how people use facebook or how much information the users decide to share or withhold, i'm talking about facebook the company.

[Edited on November 15, 2010 at 9:51 PM. Reason : /]

11/15/2010 9:50:58 PM

^ yeah, I think we agree ... privacy (whether intended or not) problems exist ... and my theory is that they are out of touch with what MANY users do on facebook, and what users expect the system to not change over time ... so their decisions are only great for some types of users ... and everyone else just suffers through it.

11/15/2010 10:00:28 PM

Quote :

""think" they deleted images"

Are you talking about deleting a single photo, or deleting your account entirely?

11/15/2010 11:46:30 PM

so when can i get my @facebook.com email address?

11/16/2010 1:36:16 PM

Images not being deleted:
http://arstechnica.com/web/news/2009/07/are-those-photos-really-deleted-from-facebook-think-twice.ars

Sending messages to wrong users:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/02/brief-facebook-glitch-sent-private-messages-to-wrong-users.ars

Sued for privacy law violations:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/04/suit-accuses-blockbuster-facebook-of-privacy-law-violations.ars

Secret datasharing with advertisers:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/05/latest-facebook-blunder-secret-data-sharing-with-advertisers.ars

Privacy Bug:
https://www.nytimes.com/external/idg/2010/05/18/18idg-facebook-fixing-embarrassing-privacy-bug-62862.html

Deceptive Privacy Policy:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/05/privacy-groups-complain-to-ftc-over-facebook-privacy-tweaks.ars

And there's probably 10-15 more... I could go on.

[Edited on November 16, 2010 at 1:50 PM. Reason : .]

11/16/2010 1:47:00 PM

*yawn*

11/16/2010 8:16:22 PM

^^ In the case of the photo deletion article, it sounds like the photos were deleted, but that there was a delay (or other issue) with them dropping out of the cdn cache. The photos were no longer referenced in html.

In order to view the photo after deletion, someone would have had to determined the specific image URL prior to the deletion. I hardly think that's a point worth harping on, as if you're truly concerned about privacy, someone could have just as easily saved that photo to disk.

I'm not going to address all of the points, but most of them would be a lot less concerning if you took the time to think about them and fully understand the matter for yourself instead of letting sensationalized journalism do it for you.

My .02.

Quote :

"so when can i get my @facebook.com email address? "

I added you for the beta

11/17/2010 2:11:38 AM

^haha, that's awesome

11/17/2010 7:49:04 AM

^^

<3

11/17/2010 9:24:16 AM

first of all, none of the articles concern me personally as i don't put anything on facebook that i don't want other people to know. but it concerns me when the general public thinking their information is safe, is taken advantage of and private information either sold to advertisers or leaked to the general public.

second, it's not about sensationalist journalism so much as these are actual privacy issues. some accidents yes, some intentinal. but even if they are accidents there's no denying they have issues with their privacy, moreso than any other social site. now maybe that's because they're the largest, but maybe because their concern for advertising over privacy to bring in money is where their priority is.

Quote :

"In order to view the photo after deletion, someone would have had to determined the specific image URL prior to the deletion."

i thought the issue is that once the images are cached in search engines, if the image isn't actually ever deleted from that URL, it's just as easily found in search results. (i.e. Google)

[Edited on November 17, 2010 at 10:14 AM. Reason : .]

11/17/2010 10:10:19 AM

Quote :

"so when can i get my @facebook.com email address?"

11/17/2010 1:02:11 PM

i keep getting messages from chicks with their tits hanging out. i like them, but then later that day their picture won't be working for some reason.

11/17/2010 2:12:56 PM

Quote :

"i thought the issue is that once the images are cached in search engines, if the image isn't actually ever deleted from that URL, it's just as easily found in search results. (i.e. Google) "

The issue that specific article was talking about was that 'deleted' images were still available if you had the specific url of the image, as they had yet to fall out (of be deleted) from the CDN used by facebook. WRT search engines, I believe google currently only crawls profile pages. The information they're able to glean from your profile page is subject to your privacy settings and more explicitly whether or not you have the 'Public search' option toggled.

In general- I think we agree. Some of the issues may be accidents, some may be intentional, but my point is that a number (if not most of them) are misunderstandings.

If you've listened to Facebook's CEO talk publicly about company financials, it's obvious that growing revenue isn't his priority, growing the user base is.

11/17/2010 2:38:19 PM

I understand the images remained even when removed from the profile and I know Google only scans the profiles. But my understanding of how Google works is that the image is never removed until the image URL is abandoned. So even if that image isn't referenced on the profile anymore, Google will keep it in the catalog if the picture & URL are still valid. So until you actually delete the picture, Google will keep it in it's database. Anyhow. Back to messages.

[Edited on November 17, 2010 at 3:15 PM. Reason : .]

11/17/2010 3:14:20 PM