Facebook - The New Big Brother?

by: Ari Rabin-Havt

Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 14:39

( - promoted by Chris Bowers)

On Saturday night I used Fandango to purchase the tickets for the movie Michael Clayton.

Then on Sunday, I looked at my Facebook feed and saw this:

"Ari bought Michael Clayton on Fandango. 5:25PM"

Having your privacy violated is a strange feeling. I don't really care that people know I went to the movies on Saturday night. I would freely share this information with anyone. But that's exactly the point. It should be up to me to share this information with others, not up to Facebook or Fandango to make that choice for me.

Ari Rabin-Havt :: Facebook - The New Big Brother?

If the producers of Michael Clayton, without permission, decided to send post cards to the friends of everyone in the theater saying "XXXX saw Michael Clayton this weekend" there would be a massive outcry. This is essentially what Facebook (and Fandango) did as part of their new "Beacon" advertising program.

Under Beacon, third party sites pay FaceBook to use its members, without permission, as their corporate spokespeople. In this case it was an ad paid for by Fandango - hunting around over the past few days, I have also seen ads from Overstock.com and Kongregate.com.

Facebook claims the practice is fine because users can "opt-out."

However David Weinberger points out in this case it's the defaults that matter:

I find myself creeped out by this system because Facebook gets the defaults wrong in two very significant areas.
When Blockbuster gives you the popup asking if you want to let your Facebook friends know about your rental, if you do not respond in fifteen seconds, the popup goes away ... and a "yes" is sent to Facebook. Wow, is that not what should happen! Not responding far more likely indicates confusion or dismissal-through-inaction than someone thinking, "I'll save myself the click."
Further, we are not allowed to opt out of the system. At your Facebook profile, you can review a list of all the sites you've been to that have presented you with the Facebook spam-your-friends option, and you can opt out of the sites one at a time. But you cannot press a big red button that will take you out of the system entirely. So, if you've deselected Blockbuster and the Manly Sexual Inadequacy Clinic from the list, if you go to a new site that's done the deal with Facebook, you'll get the popup again there. We should be allowed to Just Say No, once and for all.
Why? Because privacy is not just about information. It's all about the defaults.

For the record, when I purchased my tickets at Fandango, I never got the popup that David talked about and therefore never had the chance to opt-out.

There has always been an assumed level of privacy online. Yes, hackers can steal my data and companies create marketing profiles, but never before has personal information been shared publicly in such a careless way.

From now on every Facebook user needs to assume ANY online action, whether it's the sites they visit or the products they buy, will end up in their feed, completely public for the world to see.

Just as I was posting I got an email from MoveOn announcing a campaign on the subject. Join their Facebook group "Petition: Facebook, stop invading my privacy!" by clicking here.

Tags: privacy, facebook, (All Tags)

Print Friendly View

Send As Email

Facebook - The New Big Brother? | 9 comments

Totally agree (4.00 / 1)

And I can't imagine how this is good advertising for any of the companies involved. Won't it just offend their current customers and creep out the people who read the message updates? Seems to me the natural inclination if one of those messages goes out is to never use that product or service again.

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.

by: Lucas O'Connor @ Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 17:22:59 PM CST

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Attention Adults (0.00 / 0)

There is an opt-out option. How simple is that?

Moveon has Jumped The Shark on this one. Yeah I know congress is out of session (technically) and there isn't much for Moveon to do so they feel they have to scratch around and find 'something' so they can feel they are remaining viable - but seriously! - would it hurt to take a week off and stick to politics rather that stick their nose in a private business?

Let's face it, the cost to use Facebook is ZERO. If the price to continue using it for ZERO and maintain your privacy is to click on an opt-out button then click the damned button and move-on (pun intended)!!

This kind of childish shit is what gives the netroots a bad name. It is going to give MoveOn a bad name also as if they aren't already tarnished. If MoveOn is so concerned then as a 'public service' let the membership know they can hit the opt-out button and leave it at that. People are adults and they can decide for themselves. It's not like we don't all have to make decisions everyday you know.

The fact that Facebook members are freaking out in the article I read when all they have to do is hit a button is hilarious. The fact that MoveOn feels compelled to cross over from politics to net privacy when all it takes to maintain that privacy is to hit a button is sad. Very sad.

by: progressivesouls @ Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 11:41:46 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Really? (0.00 / 0)

You don't see some sort of principle involved here?

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.

by: Lucas O'Connor @ Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 14:54:34 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yeah I See A Principle (0.00 / 0)

When you sign up for Facebook you click that you agree to accept their policies when you create an account and in doing so you also agree that they can also change or add to their policies. That is the principle. For that you get a FREE account.

Now if they change or add to their policies then you can live with them or you can delete your account and leave.

Now additionally in this instance THEY HAVE taken your privacy into consideration and have given you the choice to opt-out of their advertising program and still keep your FREE account. How simple is that?

But rather than take them up on their opt-out offer people want to take "hours" to bitch rather that take a "second" to opt-out. How does that make sense? Seems to me that people are more interested in bitching than taking advantage of the solution that Facebook has offered.

by: progressivesouls @ Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 15:56:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

So (0.00 / 0)

that's kinda like "America, Love it or Leave it." Progressive outlook you have there.

I'd suggest that there's a broader issue of whether or not privacy should be something that you have to proactively protect at a fundamental level- that is, at what point did anyone think this was ok?

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.

by: Lucas O'Connor @ Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 17:27:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Facebook is protecting privacy. (0.00 / 0)

They provide a very simple and visible opt-out. A pop-up that asks if you want to participate or not. You don't even have to go looking for it. That's pretty fundamental.

What is it you don't understand about that? Or is just saying NO really that hard for you and others?

by: progressivesouls @ Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 19:47:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

haha (0.00 / 0)

I just logged into Blockbuster's website and got the popup. There was no opt out option even. I had to go back to facebook and adjust my privacy settings. Gotta tell you, I relish the thought of doing that everytime I visit a website.

I gotta say, the whole notion that you have to be proactive about privacy should be really upsetting. At the risk of strawmanning, would you be vehemently defending a policy in which you had to start every phone conversation with "no I do not want this call to be recorded or monitored" or what? I mean, is saying NO really that hard?

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.

by: Lucas O'Connor @ Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 10:45:30 AM CST

[ Parent ]