The end of Facebook is coming.
You read it here first (err recently)
A California judge has turned down Facebook's motion to dismiss a class-action suit against the company from users who are aggrieved that the social network was truffling through their private messages for advertising purposes. Facebook users Matthew Campbell and Michael Hurley filed the suit 12 months ago claiming that the …
Seems strange that company that prides itself on harvesting your most personal information and using it to sell advertising with Zuckerberg pushing the ethic of "Everything should be public, unless it is my private life" wanted to quash a class action from those that feel that PRIVATE means PRIVATE and not private to you, the person you are talking to and Facebook and their advertisers.
What a bunch of absolute tossers!
Isn't this similar to the way in which Google automatically scans your Google Mail messages and shows you adverts (if you don't have AdBlock) triggered by keywords in your email? Their argument was that it is all done by computer and no record is kept that associates your email account with the keywords, which sounds reasonable if it's really true (and not 'corporately true').
I don't care that Facebook notified people in the T&Cs - private email is not to be trawled through by administrative decision, period.
It is high time major websites - especially the so-called "social" ones, stop thinking that they have the right to do whatever they want as long as its mentioned in some mind-numbing paragraph on an ever-changing document that nobody with a sane mind reads.
Not excusing them here, but this isn't an email system we're talking about nor is it marketed as such, it's a chat system within an ad-funded social network site. A social network site which freely states it uses your data to target ads. Your expectations of privacy in such a service should be set accordingly.
No, it's an advertisement tool using sheeple as fodder to make its money.
MY expectations are set clearly. Unfortunately, way too many people are not conscious of this sorry state of affairs, and one can only hope that this lawsuit will bring enlightenment to some of them.
And I still find totally immoral that a company can, as you say, clearly state its nefarious, privacy-invading procedures and yet still be allowed to function. But hey, it's making money, so . . .
My opinion is that it is not the responsibility of the law/government to protect the terminally stupid from their own naivety.
It rather reminds me of a story I heard, perhaps true perhaps urban legend. The story goes that someone places an advert in a newspaper along the lines of "Send £10 to this address now!" and received a surprisingly substantial sum. Nothing illegal about it, the victims handed over money with nothing promised in return.
Ad free, troll free Facebook $20/mo. Would you pay for it? Don't say yes, 'cause we all know you'd be lying. Same for Gmail, or whatever. Are you really dumb enough to believe that you were signing up for a private service? Serious, stop and ask yourself that question.
If you believe that, then you probably also bought the lie that The Register was actually working on making their site SSL by default....it's SSL, not rocket science. However, you continue to log into a service that allows you to spew all your BS with plain text creds.....probably the same password as your email account.
This should chap your ass then .... Search google for your Facebook photos that are restricted to certain people.....OH MY GOD, they're visible. No shit!
And don't rest easy with your, "I don't use Gmail, I use super-secret email service X".....yeah, probably one with shit Cache Control and POSTs using a 200 status vice a 301. If you're confused, you'd better believe it.