Facebook is spooking me - privacy concerns
hi, I have facebook.com logged in through one browser tab and http://www.cricinfo.com/ through another browser tab and was watching the scoreboard of the live match. on looking closely, there is a small live chat area box within the cricinfo website discussing the game - where it identified my Facebook profile and had the facebook logout button on it. I clicked on the facebook logout button embedded on the cricinfo website and it logged me out of facebook on the cricinfo website as well as the facebook on the facebook.com website on the other browser tab. probably this site is affiliated to facebook. i really donot wish to be identified through the facebook account when i choose to visit a website(which i might not even know is affiliated to facebook). however, there seems to be no way to disable this feature from facebook privacy settings. if anyone knows of a way to stop identifying facebook sessions on its affiliated sites, please let me know. Thank you, Sarad.
On Sat, May 01, 2010 at 10:08:58AM -0700, Sarad AV wrote:
hi,
I have facebook.com logged in through one browser tab and http://www.cricinfo.com/ through another browser tab and was watching the scoreboard of the live match. on looking closely, there is a small live chat area box within the cricinfo website discussing the game - where it identified my Facebook profile and had the facebook logout button on it. I clicked on the facebook logout button embedded on the cricinfo website and it logged me out of facebook on the cricinfo website as well as the facebook on the facebook.com website on the other browser tab.
probably this site is affiliated to facebook. i really donot wish to be identified through the facebook account when i choose to visit a website(which i might not even know is affiliated to facebook). however, there seems to be no way to disable this feature from facebook privacy settings. if anyone knows of a way to stop identifying facebook sessions on its affiliated sites, please let me know.
The only way to minimize data leaks into social networks is not have accounts with them (and encourage your friends to not have accounts with them). -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
On Sat, May 01, 2010 at 09:55:56PM -0700, Sarad AV wrote:
Yes, I can get rid of my account.
Notice that the information you and your friends have leaked cannot be recalled. It is almost certainly sitting in some corporate or federal database out there, ready to be mined some day. Today, you can easily store ~MByte for each warm body on this planet in a single rack -- or a GByte in a single datacenter. And an elephant never forgets. -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
Yes, and this list also since 1992. Come on, this list is among the earliest to be federally databased and loose fingers tapping greasy keyboards surely led to capturing other lists, and emails, and privacy protection methods, names, addresses, behavioral profiles, nyms, pseudonyms, anonymns, hide-outs, onions, tors, crypto "unbreakable" and implementations easily hackable, TA evasions, accusations, put-downs, name-callings, rattings to the spying customers that paid subscribers to join up and report malefactors, who was susceptible because ridiculed here, who pretended to the least susceptible but bragged about it so much it led to exactly the kind of attention braggarts desire to turncoat with a smirk, and as ever, the ones who came here to learn how to make a buck by exploiting openness and gullibility and blind faith in surefire comsec ways to elude "jack-booted authorities." Face it, Facebook and ilk came from this nascent social media promulgating the wonderful world of "if you are really stupid the Internet is the place to empower you, here's how to hide your plans in the open." Take a look at social media Lady Ga Ga super-confidential Wikileaks' unctuous comsec promises which have zero chance of being any more trustworthy than the plethora of com, org, gov privacy policies deluding users. The more promises of privacy the greater the deception, affirmed here as biblical. Post tips for perfect privacy here, Schneier's blog, Cryptography, alt-this-or-that, Tor -- cellars that never leak like those screaming beggars for being screwed.
Notice that the information you and your friends have leaked cannot be recalled. It is almost certainly sitting in some corporate or federal database out there, ready to be mined some day.
Today, you can easily store ~MByte for each warm body on this planet in a single rack -- or a GByte in a single datacenter. And an elephant never forgets.
On Sun, May 02, 2010 at 07:21:35AM -0400, John Young wrote:
Yes, and this list also since 1992. Come on, this list is among the earliest to be federally databased and loose fingers tapping greasy keyboards surely led to capturing other lists, and emails, and privacy protection methods, names, addresses, behavioral profiles, nyms, pseudonyms, anonymns, hide-outs, onions, tors, crypto "unbreakable" and implementations easily hackable, TA evasions, accusations, put-downs, name-callings, rattings to the spying customers that paid subscribers to join up and report malefactors, who was susceptible because ridiculed here, who pretended to the least susceptible but bragged about it so much it led to exactly the kind of attention braggarts desire to turncoat with a smirk, and as ever, the ones who came here to learn how to make a buck by exploiting openness and gullibility and blind faith in surefire comsec ways to elude "jack-booted authorities."
This is a pretty small group (these days, there are probably less than 10 people total still on this list), and presumably everybody who has signed up fully realizes what she is disclosing, and just how much she is comfortable disclosing. The millions on social networks are a completely different order of magnitude and amount of personal information leaked, integrated over all social networks over time.
Face it, Facebook and ilk came from this nascent social media promulgating the wonderful world of "if you are really stupid the Internet is the place to empower you, here's how to hide your plans in the open."
Take a look at social media Lady Ga Ga super-confidential Wikileaks' unctuous comsec promises which have zero chance of being any more trustworthy than the plethora of com, org, gov privacy policies deluding users.
The more promises of privacy the greater the deception, affirmed here as biblical.
Post tips for perfect privacy here, Schneier's blog, Cryptography, alt-this-or-that, Tor -- cellars that never leak like those screaming beggars for being screwed.
Notice that the information you and your friends have leaked cannot be recalled. It is almost certainly sitting in some corporate or federal database out there, ready to be mined some day.
Today, you can easily store ~MByte for each warm body on this planet in a single rack -- or a GByte in a single datacenter. And an elephant never forgets. -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
Yes, ten subscribers left and none not a rat. New York Times today has at least three articles about online spying, two in the back of the business section, one as the principal piece in the Sunday Magazine, unusually long. The magazine piece describes encouragement of people to put everything out there as if a marvelous way to socialize. Some coverage of the delirium of advertisers, such as the Times, at this oil spill of free data. One of the business articles focuses on Twitter giving all its messages to the Library of Congress, and the delirium of scholars at getting this oil spill of data unmediated by authoritatives like the Times and greeders themselves. Twitter claims it strongly emphasizes to its users about the public nature of their data. Says it thinks its privacy policy should be called a public policy, but that California requires a privacy policy so it keeps the deception going to comply with law. All is online spying is lawful, and the data snatchers are delirious with pleasure about it. Marc Rotenberg at EPIC is the sole source quoted as saying US privacy policy is totally fucked up. The article implies the EU approach is better, despite there being no other governments on earth that spy on its people more than the EU, and which blames the US and China and Russia and anybody else handy for being the threat. Finally, a Times editorial today praises Google for its recent disclosure of government requests for data. Says Google intends to turn over the actual requests to an unnamed non-profit for publication. Still no answer to what Google does with the planetary-grade stuff it gathers, that's deeply salt-mined. And nothing about the general online and offline spying practices now endemic under guise of beneficial data gathering and lawful compliance for what else the security of users and nations and economies. On to the hot shit handhelds, climate friendly vehicular black boxes, monitors of kitchen appliances and crib-killer and homicidal students and maturbating parents, and automatic upgrades and renewals sucking your privates. The Times chief editor says also today that the use of anonymous sources is essential to check government abuse, and while there are occasional abuses of the practice that is why ombudspersons are there to keep the Times authoritatively trustworthy. Nothing about Times ads being composed of cancerous waste.
On Sun, 2 May 2010, Eugen Leitl wrote:
Yes, I can get rid of my account.
Notice that the information you and your friends have leaked cannot be recalled. It is almost certainly sitting in some corporate or federal database out there, ready to be mined some day.
Today, you can easily store ~MByte for each warm body on this planet in a single rack -- or a GByte in a single datacenter. And an elephant never forgets.
But that is positively correlated to the ability to completely hide your tracks online with a fairly mid-range level of technical sophistication. It doesn't take too much to hide your tracks - at least from a braindead sorting algorithm.
A fair number of cpunks subscribers hid their true names from the gitgo. The gitgo varied among subscribers, with most of the earliest using what seemed to be true names but who knows for sure who is. As the list infame grew there were more of those hiding identity. And deploying deeper levels of hide from lessons learned from the list and other sources about how hidden identities are tracked and faked and misrepresented and packaged alluringly as foolproof protection. Then there were strategies and strategems to become more wily and more deceptive, one being the advocacy of open sources in order to gull the gullible into revealing themselves and their hides. No doubt the wily knew this ploy and pretended to be open while asymmetrically siphoning far more then offered, the model used by official and business spies and intimate lovers. The rigged jury is still out on whether public key crypto was a grand deception, if not wittingly by the inventors, then by those who would benefit from widespread faith in its trustworthiness. Mindful that the most successful mindfucks work best against the smartest people who cannot conceive of being oufoxed by those they consider to be the dumbest. I always liked PZ's "pretty good" candor for its understated corniness. Nothing absolutely reliable over the top bullshit like those who have tried to market it as The Best Ever. Symantec will probably sell it back to him to cleanse its besmeared trust. What will become of all those archived PGP PKs capable of tracking and cracking SKs? What, you had not heard of that?
On May 1, 2010, at 1:08 PM, Sarad AV wrote:
They kicked me off about a year ago. Too many links to news. Or something. They never said. :-) Now all the people from high school who "friended" me once they discovered I'm in .ai don't know what happened to me. Shame. You can never go back, boys and girls. As they say about comedy, monoculture ain't pretty. Cheers, RAH "hettinga" on twitter, if that matters. Hint: I post a lot of news links. :-).
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Sarad AV <jtrjtrjtr2001@yahoo.com> writes:
... i really donot wish to be identified through the facebook account ...
What expectation of privacy do you have, using facebook? As far as I know, facebook can only be accessed through a plain-text real time connection. These emissions from your site, along with all the others, are subject to being archived by your adversary. Being plain-text, they can later be used to assemble a dossier on you. Privacy is lost. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8+ <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/> iEYEARECAAYFAkvchZEACgkQDkU5rhlDCl6gmQCdEn+FidRUcZsoi85E0Ct6V75D rxEAn2HN9u4QrTg9yceqMmA1YGWBcYfB =Niqq -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--- On Sun, 5/2/10, StealthMonger <StealthMonger@nym.mixmin.net> wrote: [...]
From: StealthMonger <StealthMonger@nym.mixmin.net>
Sarad AV <jtrjtrjtr2001@yahoo.com> writes:
... i really donot wish to be identified through the facebook account ...
What expectation of privacy do you have, using facebook?
Yes, its not a https connection. Infact, most of us are conscious of what we say on facebook. we are aware of the unknown element of being pried on without our knowledge. Allowing other sites to recognize us through our facebook account is a bit scary. we don't even know that the site we are visiting is affiliated to facebook or if it will identify us through our Facebook account. A cookie may keep track of me or some info may leak from the browser - it doesn't matter much (to me). It doesn't give out the IDENTITY of the end user. Facebook here totally nails your identity to what you are looking at. I was expecting a Facebook privacy option to turn off this identification feature while visiting facebook affiliated sites. Sarad.
On Sat, May 01, 2010 at 10:07:59PM -0700, Sarad AV wrote:
I was expecting a Facebook privacy option to turn off this identification feature while visiting facebook affiliated sites.
Did you miss the firstborn clause when you signed up, too? -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
On May 2, 2010, at 6:20 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
On Sat, May 01, 2010 at 10:07:59PM -0700, Sarad AV wrote:
I was expecting a Facebook privacy option to turn off this identification feature while visiting facebook affiliated sites.
Did you miss the firstborn clause when you signed up, too?
Frankly, it was the sperm sample that really pissed me off... Cheers, RAH
participants (6)
-
Eugen Leitl -
John Case -
John Young -
R.A. Hettinga -
Sarad AV -
StealthMonger