infinite ideas machine

Some context…

Unfortunately, my response was – as usual – too verbose. It broke Facebook’s 1000 character Wall posting limit, so I had to find somewhere else to publish it (i.e. here) so I could link to what I wrote. Which was this:

Sorry, James – I can see part of what you posted: “I think Phil is popu…” but not the rest as I don’t allow any (third party) FB app to access my personal data. [I'm afraid Quotes fails at the first hurdle for me because, for anything other than very basic info about it, it apparently requires me to drop out of https]

I am especially reluctant to grant access when that *includes* [which means, as their privacy policy states, "including but not limited to"] my name, profile picture, gender, networks, user ID, list of friends and any other information I’ve shared with everyone; that requires me to allow it to spam my real e-mail address; which reserves the right to post status messages, notes, photos and videos to my Wall [which I'd then have to keep checking]; and whose privacy policy states: “We may update this Privacy Policy from time to time, so you should visit often to review any changes” [i.e. 'from this point onwards we'll do whatever the hell we want, without seeking your permission or even informing you directly of what we've done'].

Not so much ‘permission’ as ‘carte blanche’…

If you haven’t already, it may be worth casting your eyes over the whole policy: http://apprunner.elasticbeanstalk.com/docs/privacy.html – an indication of how appalling a system FB has become is that this can be presented in all seriousness as any sort of ‘privacy’ policy!*

Though I have to say I do ‘sort of’ appreciate their honesty: “Onoko International [?] will make reasonable efforts to secure your Personal Data from unauthorized use” – sounds like they have put about as much thought into that sentence as they will into looking after your data! (You know I prefer a more absolutist approach, e.g. “We will never share your data with anyone, and we will prosecute anyone who makes unauthorised use of the data you share with us.”)

I must confess, though, I am egotistical enough to ask what your quotation says in full

–

*As I’ve not bothered to publicly articulate my reasoning behind refusing app requests before, I hope you won’t mind if I finish my train of thought so I can refer (others) to it later…

I contend that Facebook is at heart little more than an environment of cleverly-designed and executed psychologically-manipulative personalised public forums with outrageously overengineered profiles and user tracking, where you surrender not just your personal data and content but moderation to automated systems and persons unknown. Treat it knowingly as such and you MAY be safe.

Facebook is clearly not (just) ‘a social network’, it is also quite clearly positioning itself to be an (the!) internet identity authority, but – like all walled gardens eventually do – it is also rapidly reaching the limits to which it can expand, which makes it especially dangerous right now.

I do not ‘play’ in or with Facebook.

Now I’m (mainly) off my NO2ID persona, I try to interact and transact with a degree of caution that may not be immediately evident.

Please don’t take this as a rant against you or how you decide to use Facebook. It isn’t. But I find it hard to express just how appalling I find this place, the more I dig into it. (And no, I won’t “just leave”, as some might suggest. When I see something this bad, I feel I have to try to understand it. Who knows? I may even decide I have to do something about it…)

A fascinating reflection by Chris Peterson on the on-off-on-off blocking by Facebook of “citizen activist” website J30Strike.org over the past 48 hours.

I think Chris probably has it right – there’s no need for conspiracy theories, one merely has to look at how the propagated effects of automated blocking systems tend to suppress ‘controversial’ content, opinion and commentary to see what has happened here.

But this begs some very big questions…

Facebook wields incredible power: one might even argue that – by virtue of its size, penetration and quite evident (designed) ability to apply social pressure – it is forging a new form of ‘social contract’. It is therefore hypocrisy of the highest order for for it and its principals on the one hand to claim ‘people sharing stuff’ as an indisputable good (insofar as that serves their business model) and on the other to build and maintain systems that restrain/constrict/block ‘people sharing stuff’ that is not only entirely legal, but part of civil society organising itself – one of the fundamental underpinnings of democracy.

Wake up, people! Zuckerberg and his pals are doing exactly what the UK Home Office under Blair, Blunkett and Brown attempted to do with the UK ID scheme – i.e. despite all protests to the contrary, they are building the tools of totalitarianism. In fact, I contend that Facebook is not what it purports to be. To all intents and purposes, and far from being a ‘cuddly’ social ‘toy’, it is positioning itself to become a the global identity authority.

Ignore the hype.

Take another look.

Join the dots…

Get the picture?

Zuckerberg is no more Hitler than Blair was – click “See the advert here” link for picture. But he’s far less ignorant of technology and its effects and, by that same degree, more culpable. That he’s making billions doing it (anyone saying “Get over yourself, FB is just a private company” is either wilfully ignorant or a berk) neither excuses him, nor makes it right – though it does make him a heck of a lot more influential…

If Facebook wishes to be part of society – and I submit that something calling itself ‘a social network’ probably does – then it needs to act responsibly. And it needs to start NOW.

At present, FB appears to be sliding more and more rapidly down the slippery slope of authoritarianism. It acts increasingly arbitrarily in its own self interest and in the process seems perfectly happy to ride roughshod over individuals and individual rights. Its smug self-justifications grow ever more shrill and less palatable: “Privacy… get over it!”? Hmmm… Might that just have something to do with the growing exodus?

And now, with its latest few moves – some of which are clearly intentional – it appears to be mounting a series of assaults on fundamentals of free society: privacy… freedom of speech… freedom of association, even.

You are perfectly entitled to think I am overstating the case*. I’m sure Mr Zuckerberg, his buddies and his shareholders would love you to think so. (And preferably to spread your ‘anticontroversial’ opinion over the nice shiny cage network echo chamber they have built for you…) But I’m just expressing an opinion. A strong one. One highly critical of a company and a bunch of people who I consider to represent a serious threat to values I personally – and many others – care about and have spent time fighting for. An opinion I shall continue to post/link about inside Facebook… until or unless it gets blocked.

Which – were it to ever happen, and I’m not saying it will any time soon – might somewhat prove my point, don’t you think?

[N.B. Don't be fooled by the 'halo effect' of the Arab Spring. Just because some of the social networking tools were used to facilitate self-organisation within oppressive regimes does not mean they (the tools) are a necessary or absolute good. Indeed, any positive effects may turn out to be entirely relative - history shows us you only have to be a bit less authoritarian to look like a saviour, at the time. Over time, and certainly as governments and dictators catch up - which they are doing fast - what may have helped overthrow one bad lot will simply (but maybe more subtly) help the next bad lot impose their version and vision of control.]

–

*I am, of course, being deliberately inflammatory in some of my statements and allusions. This is merely to emphasise my point, and maybe catch a few more people’s attention…

Facebook does it again. And this time they’ll probably end up killing people*.

Graham Clueley over at naked security blog has some excellent practical advice on how to switch off facial recognition in Facebook, which was rolled out enabled by default and without any notification across non-US systems earlier this week.

If you give a monkeys’ about your own or your family’s personal security or, frankly, if you don’t understand why ‘facial recognition by default’ might be a bad idea I strongly recommend you go and adjust your privacy settings. NOW. (I use the term ‘personal security’ deliberately, as I believe this move is so fundamentally stupid and dangerous that it transcends ‘privacy’ – though clearly Facebook’s utter disregard for, and failure to properly consider, privacy is writ large in this decision.)

Sophos’ general guide on ‘Facebook Security Best Practices‘ is also pretty good. Worth reading and applying, especially if you are new to social networks.

–

*With half a billion+ people registered on the system, switching on facial recognition by default has just turned Facebook into a stalker’s paradise – not that it wasn’t halfway there already.

Permanently, publicly available ‘CCTV footage’ of your life, captured through the lenses of other people’s cameras, provided for profit fun by those wonderful folks at Facebook…

This is so staggeringly irresponsible, it is hard to believe Facebook has made even the most basic of risk assessments of this latest ‘business decision’. Or, if it has, someone has decided that risking lives is acceptable (or disavowable) enough to turn another buck.

Facebook is now a far more effective tool tool for – in no particular order – abusive ex-partners, people traffickers, bullies, private investigators and other more or less regulated snoopers, the security services or secret police of any country (not just the US, of course), bounty hunters, violent fundamentalist homophobes, gossip-y tabloid-y journalists (though it’s often hard to distinguish these days), organised criminals, blackmailers, etc. to hunt people down.

Should Facebook be held responsible for what happens next? Yes, of course – because they haven’t given you any sort of meaningful choice. They may argue (legal) clauses in (legal) contracts and ‘the right to opt out’, but this sort of stuff is more along the lines of constructing/destroying a social contract – not just a commercial one.

This single move shows them to be either arrogant, dangerously irresponsible idiots or evil greedy bastards – or maybe both. You decide.

Don’t forget, this isn’t about what you’ve decided to upload or tag. This is Facebook saying it thinks it’s spotted you (how reliably, it remains to be seen – but the more reliable it is, the more dangerous it becomes):

“Here she is! And here… and here. Ooh, and look who she’s with… Hmm, I recognise that place…”

Get the picture?

–

Other references:

‘Facebook quietly switches on facial recognition tech by default‘, The Register, 7/6/11.

‘The Offline Social Network‘ by Hungry Beast.

And thanks to Bill Thompson for the heads-up… on Facebook.