Facebook security hole exposes Zuckerberg's privates

A security hole on Facebook has been exposing private pictures of countless users, including the Social Network's founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg. A photo pilfering exploit posted to a bodybuilding.com forum on Monday included step-by-step instructions for viewing pictures designated as private by the Facebook users who posted …

[darkmage0707077]

Keep it Off the Net

Of course, that's only possible if you can get all of your friends with cameras to agree to never post pictures that include you to the web.

As well as family.

And coworkers.

And public officials.

And personal enemies.

And other people who know you.

And anyone who doesn't know you who you might conceivably meet some day during your lifetime for some reason.

And the only way to make sure all these people (read: far too many people to be practical) don't post pics of you is to constantly monitor the entire internet 24x7 and report any pictures of you that you find inappropriate to the responsible websites immediately, in the hopes that your tying speed is faster then whatever archiving/data storing methods said website uses.

The other option we currently have is to simply say "f**k it" and assume that we're GOING to be exposed in an embarasing fashion some time on the internet. In which case, you simply live as best as you can, and when the inevitable happens, you either hope the problem eventually goes away on its own (and suffer the social stigma/job loss/etc that come with it) or you shuck everything you've ever known and loved, and start over with an entirely new identity (location, physical appearance, name and bio, etc).

At least, that's the choice being presented to us by those in charge. Really wish there was some third option, but with company, government and cultural attitudes towards the internet and data archiving, there currently isn't.

[Semaj]

Or you could just not do things in public that you would be overly embarrassed if people you knew found out about.

[Chris 3]

What, like...

Standing in the front garden with your children with the house number in plain sight?

[Peter2]

>" Standing in the front garden with your children with the house number in plain sight?"

Which causes you employment problems... how?

[Peter2]

Alternately, if you don't want photographs of you engaged in compromising activities to appear, don't engage in activities so compromising they would put you out of a job? That, or perform them in the bedroom without the company of cameras.

I wouldn't be overjoyed if some pictures of me (airsofting etc) were circulated around work as I could potentially look a bit weird running around shooting people and blowing things up at a weekend, but frankly the worst people could do would be take pictures out of context (like me potentially looking a bit like jack the ripper after having to do first aid dealing with a stab wound once) but again, I don't think it's anything that would cause employment problems.

[Anonymous Coward]

"That, or perform them in the bedroom without the company of cameras."

Is THAT where I went wrong? Oh golly. :-(

[adnim]

And the moral of the story is...

As with any other social networking site, do not post information or images that you wouldn't want the rest of the world and his/her dog to see.

[AbortRetryFail]

Inconceivable!

Wait... Mark Zuckerberg has private photos? That he doesn't want to share with the whole world? Inconceivable!

Surely he didn't opt out of his own "share everything by default" privacy policies?

[Jason Terando]

Inconceivable?

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[Eddy Ito]

To misquote Clint Eastwood in The Outlaw Josey Wales:

"Are you gonna choke that chicken or whistle Dixie?"

[Stupidscript]

The only rational advice ...

"Endeavour to persevere."

[Charlie van Becelaere]

I, as no doubt many others,

cry fowl, sir.

[Anonymous Coward]

Are bodybuilders the new anonymous?

or were they just after someone's oiled up muscle pics?

[Xenobyte]

Yes - or rather it's the new 4chan...

[Stevie]

Bah!

Presumably the story here is that the photos are shared without Facebook actively working to facilitate same.

I tried to explain the obvious to my kid. You put "private pictures" on web. Friend sees them and hits ALT-Print Scrn. Some time later, recently unfriended friend decides to photoshop'n'share.

There is no such thing as a private document that has been in the hands of someone else.

[zen1]

irony

developing and building a the premier social network that could possibly set new records for network: dozens upon dozens of billions.

Settling with the FTC on repeated privacy concerns and questionable ethics: estimated cost for the next 30 years: probably a net loss of 100 million or more.

Seeing pictures of yourself holding your latest conquest, after countless reassurances that FB is secure: Priceless.

[FozzyBear]

Privacy on the internet

An interesting concept. Shame it'll never fly

[Spud2go]

Article headline...

Eeeewww - I didn't need that picture in my head!

[Anonymous Coward]

Could be worse

"FACEBOOK SECURITY EXPOSES ZUCKERBERG'S HOLE PRIVATES"

[Anonymous Coward]

Also

the Bitch has now alienated PETA, WWF and every animal lobby from using facebook?

[Elmer Phud]

There's a bad side to this?

"alienated PETA, WWF and every animal lobby from using facebook?"

Sounds like a WIN situation to me

[Anonymous Coward]

Why?

Is him killing the animals himself any worse than industrial mass scale killing - so we can eat?

Maybe PETA, but don't see how WWF could be involved. He's not killing wild animals.

[Pascal Monett]

"The privacy of our user's data is a top priority for us"

But of course it is - just like the mafia is very concerned by your personal security (for a price). They both want to be sure that they are the only ones to profit from you.

[M7S]

And let this be a warning to you all thinking of using "the cloud"

"It would appear that those located in the US got better results than others."

If you were paranoid that puting your corporate data on servers where there might be a US parent company in the supplier chain (now, or in the future), thus enabling their authorities to use the Patriot Act to have a surreptious look around if they felt there was a legitimate reason/advantage to be gained, now you can be even more paranoid, realising that they've enabled "ordinary" citizens to be cyber-minutemen and check out the personal data of us dodgy foreigners as well.

[Duppo Floopery]

Exposed?

Hardly, those boobs are under a shirt.

[Winkypop]

"The privacy of our user's data is a top priority for us"

So says the PR machine.

[Mr Young]

So - chicken choker eh?

Glad I haven't looked at all the photos - I need some mind bleach already.

[Anonymous Coward]

Forgive me while I roll on the floor laughing....

AUAHUHUHAUHUAHUAHUHAUHAUHUAHUAHUAHUHAUUAHUAHUHAUHUHA ROFL AUHAUHUAHUAHUHUAHUAHUHAUHUAHUAHUHUAHUAHUHAUHUAHHAUHUAHUHAUHUAHAHUHAUHUAHUHAUHUAHUHAUHUAHUAHUAHA Facebook privacy.....UAHUHAUHUAHUHAUHAUHUAHUHAUHAUHUAHUAHUHAUHUHUHAUHUAHUAHUHAUHUHAUHAUHUAHUHA

[Spud2go]

Article headline...

Eeewwww - really didn't need that picture in my head.

[pixl97]

Could be worse, he could be choking that chicken.

[zen1]

Oh, and for the record...

Zuckerburg is still a tool

[Grease Monkey]

So a code update that introduced a major security hole got out there and was only live for a very short time? And they seem to want credit for pulling the code quickly? How about getting credit for testing your code properly in the first place?

It's not like it would have taken much testing, the fact that somebody found and exploited a hole in code that was only live for a very short time would seem to suggest that the hole was very easy to find.

[Grease Monkey]

"The privacy of our user's data is a top priority for us"

Oh FFS! People might take them seriously if they were at least a little honest. They are a business therefore their top priority is making money. If they were to say "the privacy of our users' data is among our top priorities" I might (just might) believe them. But their top priority? Pull the other one.

[Steven Roper]

To give them their due

they did say "a" top priority, not "the" top priority or "our" top priority...