Google engineering gaggle flees Facebook

A gaggle of Google engineers have expressed their displeasure with Facebook's latest effort to share your data with third-party sites, and many have gone so far as to deactivate their accounts. This includes the Delphic Oracle of the SEO world, Matt Cutts, who announced his Facebook deactivation with a post to Twitter. Cutts …

[quartzie]

pot calling the kettle black

Google crying foul over privacy concerns? Now I've heard it all.

Neither of the two companies care one bit about the privacy of their users, the announcement being merely a marketing ploy in an attempt to lure F users to G's version of social goodness.

One significant difference remains, though - in posting on Facebook, (hopefully) most users understand they are sharing information, while the Google approach is to share bits and pieces that were never intended to be broadcast to the world in the first place.

[Elmer Phud]

Opt in - Opt out

Not that Google toolbar isn't bloody everywhere as an opt-out tick, either.

And there's that 'googleanalytics' url what whizzes past as one visits various sites.

They will most likely end up as mega-corp combining the 'we know where you've been' and 'we know who you are and who your mates are'. It's really just a lovers spat - the gentle punching between teenagers before they go and have a grope in the bushes.

[Keith T]

FB “instant personalization” only uses *public* data from *your profile*

The way I read it, “instant personalization” only uses *public* data from *your profile* (privacy setting “Everyone”).

If you set the privacy for part of your profile to public (i.e. “Everyone”), you should not be surprised that everyone can see it.

If you have private information in your profile, and the privacy is set to “Everyone” that is something you should change in your Facebook privacy settings.

Likewise for what your friends can share about you through “instant personalization” if public data from your profile (privacy setting “Everyone”).

This is controlled here:

http://www.facebook.com/ <insert your user code> ?ref=profile#!/settings/?tab=privacy&section=personal_content

To double check, I’ve asked Facebook to clarify this. They should be consistent in their use of either “Everyone” or “Public” to describe the setting for data anyone can see.

I'm not surprised some people are confused by Facebook using 2 words to mean one concept. Facebook should be more careful.

[Gazzaroonii]

Friends share your information without you knowledge.

More specifically, these sites "may access any information you have made visible to Everyone ... as well as your publicly available information. This includes your Name, Profile Picture, Gender, Current City, Networks, Friend List, and Pages." On Monday, Facebook announced a transition where a "new type of Facebook Page" will make the "current city, hometown, education and work, and likes and interests sections of your profile" publicly available after you go through the transition tool (or those items will be deleted).

I would have no problem with this if I was given a choice to share this information. However, this information is shared without my consent and whenever someone in my friends list goes to one of these sites or presses a like button. Consequently I have deleted all my personal information and blocked the partner sites applications.

The fact that this is such a convoluted procedure leads me to the conclusion that most of my friends will not be equipped to protect my data. In fact some may not understand or agree with my views on privacy and so not bother to protect me, a concern when others are allowed to share your information.

Here's a guide on opting out:

http://w2.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/04/how-opt-out-facebook-s-instant-personalization/

[Anonymous Coward]

"This dogfood tastes funny!"

"Ah, you're not using our own-brand dogfood. Here, lap it up, on-nom-nom-nom."

[heyrick]

Hey, I like this shopping idea...

"It's like walking into Walmart for the first time and the greeter calling your mom (you're wearing a shirt with your mom's number on it, apparently) and asking what you and your friends like to eat, then handing you a shopping cart with suggested purchases."

I always forget something, and have to put up with "mom" giving disapproving looks. So this would be useful. In fact, why not make life really easy and have somebody put these things in the "cart" (trolley). No, wait, put it into a carrier bag so I can just turn up and wave some cash at them.

Oh, hang on, that's already been done...

[Solomon Grundy]

So What?

This isn't a big deal at all, just another swipe in the Google vs Microsoft whine fest. None of it matters anyway because as we all know you don't need any privacy if you have nothing to hide.

[Dan 55]

What does this remind me of... oh, yes... Analytics/Adwords

"The move came just hours after Facebook introduced an "instant personalization" thingy that automatically feeds your Facebook profile data to certain third-party sites when you - or your Facebook "friends" - pay a visit."

You know, similar to if you log in with your Google profile and visit third-party sites who use Analytics or Adwords, only the data gets fed back to Google. Or even if you don't log in, because your temporary Google cookie will later be linked up to your Google profile when you finally do log in.

What is the problem that Google's engineers have with this, that in Facebook's case the flow of information is to the third party sites instead of back to Facebook? Because otherwise there's precious little difference, it's still letting corporations have your data as you browse the net.

[Lou 2]

Business model ...

So what COULD the two business model be?

- Google gathers your data and uses it to make money - i.e. selling screen space on your web real estate to advertisers, usage patterns etc.

- Facebook sells your data to a third party to use on your web real estate and both they and the third party makes money.

Both use your personal data to make money with - what is the problem?

[Jerome 0]

Designed?

"fundamentally, the service is designed to expose information inside users' Gmail accounts"

That's a bit sensationalist, isn't it? Fundamentally, Buzz is designed to allow users to post status updates for their friends to read. You could also say it's designed to let Google get their slice of the social networking pie, before Facebook scoffs the lot (too late, some might say).

There's no denying Google made some pretty shocking privacy gaffes with the service. It's probably fair to say they care about your privacy about as much as Facebook do. But it's going a little far to say it's "designed" to expose information from your Gmail.

[TeeCee]

Maybe they're only following orders?

Google launch a Facebum competitor and its staff up sticks and move to using it, quoting "privacy concerns" as main reason for doing so.

Other news:

Tesco execs don't shop at Sainsburys. Quote "choice and value" as reason for using Tesco.

HP run in-house systems on Itanium servers. Quote "improved security model" as reason.

Bear shits in woods. Quotes "claustrophobic episode" as reason for not using public toilets.

Stop Press: Pope confirms "beard allergy" is main reason for failure to convert to Islam.

[Anonymous Coward]

oh, the irony

'"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place," Schmidt tells CNBC'

From:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/07/schmidt_on_privacy/

That's 'Schmidt' as in the CEO of Google.

[Anonymous Coward]

Chedk and all my stuff is off already

I already restrict stuff to friends only and they cannot post about me.

And this new thing is not turned on