http://digg.com/tech_news/Facebook_Stalker_City_Includes_LIVE_Counter

Before, I would just click on a profile and look at it, and remember what I saw before and see what was new (based on memory). Now Facebook highlights it for me, and even puts it on my front page, so I don’t have to click on the profile in the first place.

I still get the exact same information, it’s just easier for me.

Fundamentally, it seems that people are complaining that their friends (not random other people, their friends) know what they put on their profiles. Isn’t that the entire point of Facebook? That your friends know what’s on your profile? What harm is there in making it easier for your friends to see what’s new with you?

The fundamental question I don’t understand is this:
If it’s so bad that your friends can now know what’s new with you, why did not bother you when your friends could see your profile (and from memory, or diff) see what was new that way? I can’t see how people can have a problem with the current system and not have had a problem with was there before. They are informationally equivalent. There is no new information, there is only meta-information being added: information about the information, if you will.

There are curtains on Facebook: folks who aren’t your friends can’t see your profile or changes to your profile, at least not via Facebook (other people can still show them, of course). There has never been any bumpy-glass on Facebook: it always been possible to get a precise, perfect view: both on old Facebook and new Facebook. The only difference is now that it’s easier. The view is the exact same as it has always been.

I guess that’s the fundamental point behind my entire post in the first place: If before it didn’t bother people that their friends could see their profiles, why does it bother them that their friends can see what’s changed in their profiles?

It’s purposely ridiculous to illustrate a point. No system can be built completely secure, especially with a human factor on almost every component you place in the process. Obscurity is all you really have whether it be via curtains, math, or keys. The hard part is finding the right level of obscurity to minimize your risk.

If you’ve ever lived in the first floor of a brownstone in new york city, curtains are important. People don’t have to trespass to look into your window because they’re walking only a foot away from it. Whenever you’re close to an open window you probably look in. It’s probably guilt free as well. So will be all your new facebook snooping.

The best real life comparison I can currently create requires a little bit of reality stretching, but it is more apt. Let’s say that I install bumpy glass windows all over my house, of the same sort that one would find in a shower (I’m guessing there is a better name for it, but you should know what I mean). For the most part, people only get a vague picture of what I am doing inside my home. However, it is not physically impossible to create a lens that would negate the refraction from the glass and create a sharp image of my every move. I install and use these windows knowing that a person may use such a lens, but I’m satisfied because I am aware that most people will not. What Facebook is doing, however, is essentially giving each and every person on my street a pair of bumpy-glass-negating glasses. You can see why this would make me upset.

If I can conclude anything, it is that the new Facebook clearly forces (not just allows) more people to know more about me than what they knew before. If one was to look at my profile - to get my phone number or to leave a message, whatever the reason may be - one cannot help but notice my recent activity. And this is to speak nothing of the news feed on each users’s home page. Of course, legally there is nothing wrong with this; but I’m not talking in legal terms. I don’t know if one can even call it “security” because I am aware that a dedicated person can find out whatever they want. If a person wants to find who I’m talking to and about what, that is their own business and I’m fine with it; I too have nothing to hide. What I do not want is the sort of availability the recent changes have made.

Maybe we should just call this “obscurity through inconvenience”? After all, there is nothing wrong with wanting to be obscure, and the Facebook changes are certainly forcing the hand of those who are wont to be.

The situation with the new Facebook is not one of a failure of security mechanism: there would be justifiable outroar if someone was able to hack the Facebook site and download everyone’s profiles without their permission.

The Internet is too young for there to be societal mores about it: observe wanton music downloading… most people would not feel guilty analyzing their friends profiles for changes: in fact that’s what they’re doing when they check their friend’s profiles.

The privacy of obscurity is an interesting concept that I think deserves more analysis, but I don’t think it applies in this case because of the consent given in the ToS :-/

Andrew, as for the legality of Facebook’s ToS or its ethical implications, well, investigating stuff like that is why I am going to law school :) I agree that it’s something we need to look at as a society in more detail, especially as the Internet becomes more and more a part of people’s daily lives. What rights do visitors have on the Internet?

I’m not sure how else to say it, but it IS security. I was secure because, on average, no one was going to know what I did. I was secure because, now that I knew people wouldn’t know, I could be confident they didn’t care. So long as they didn’t care, they would continue to not know. It’s a psychological sort of security that has already proven itself in the old facebook. I am careful with what information I leave on publicly available sites. This does not mean, however, that I want it to be compiled and analyzed. In the way I close my curtains at night, even while I’m just watching TV or eating, I enjoy the privacy of obscurity. I’m well aware that someone could peek through the gap in the cloth, but assured that, because they have no reason to, and because most people would feel guilty or awkward about spying, they will not. In short, I have the power to control what people see about myself because people are generally predictable and bound to societal mores.

It looks like the answer is yes, but that does not mean it is an ethical or morally responsible act. I think facebook’s monitoring feature needs to be looked at with the same scrutiny. This whole situation could end up being the minor leagues for a much bigger use of that term of service in the future. NOW are you scared?

I just see adding the feature as a good thing, not necessarily for Facebook, but for people who need to realize that information on the Internet is uncontrollable. I personally like the feature and am completely comfortable with people seeing everything I’ve done on Facebook, because I don’t do anything on Facebook that I wouldn’t be comfortable with people knowing about in the first place. That’s largely because I am aware that nothing I do on Facebook is truly “private.”

If someone is unaware of this, however, they are in for a rude shock — either now, rather painlessly with this news feed, or later, when they get in trouble for a picture of them underage drinking that they posted that they thought was “safe.” The easy way out is don’t do anything that will get you in trouble; the slightly more reasonable version of that is don’t do anything that will you get in trouble when you can be tracked doing it.

Part of this unawareness might be Facebook’s own fault. Consider their Privacy Policy. It implies that Facebook’s privacy controls are absolute, when it’s pretty clear they’re not: all you have to do to prove that it is not absolute is invite a friend over who’s not on Facebook and then show them your computer screen when you’re on Facebook. Trivial.

Technology has all sorts of interesting implications for privacy. However, I don’t think that the Facebook situation is a violation of privacy because, well, people have already agreed to the Terms of Service, and what Facebook has done is entirely in Terms of Service that have been up for more a half a year, ample time for people to have read them, all the more so since they did click to agree them. I don’t know about you, but I read the ToS before I click agree on any service I sign up for, so I know what I’m getting into. This is not a case of Facebook doing something that people didn’t agree too! People that have a problem with this are somewhat self-contradictory (or negligent) because they have agreed to the ToS that enables Facebook to do what it is now doing.

All that said, I think Facebook will soon implement an opt-out, if only to quiet the uproar. I don’t think that doing so will fix the “root” of the problem: that people are unaware of the way the Internet works and will probably continue to shoot themselves in the foot with their ignorance. My fervent hope is that the situation will go a long way to rectify people’s ignorance, because informed Internet users can only be a good thing.

Finally, publicly announced (new Facebook) is no different from publicly available (old Facebook), at least in terms of information’s availablity. Security through obscurity is not security at all.

Often instant proliferation of updates is heralded by web applications, but in this case we can see the downside of that benefit.