I recently wrote about the idiotic test the LA Times is running, whereby only Facebook members can post comments on the LA Times site. I thought I'd post yet more ammunition against this stupid idea.
UPDATE 09/26/11: Here's yet ANOTHER story from the LA Times about Facebook killing its users' privacy...yet I can't comment on the story because--you guessed it!--the LA Times only allows comments from Facebook members!
Today's LA Times has this story, Facebook apps may have leaked millions of users' personal data to third parties, which says:
"Facebook apps may have inadvertently leaked the personal data of millions of Facebook users to third parties such as advertisers, according to the Web security firm Symantec.
Among the information that could have been accessed is data from user profiles, pictures and Facebooks chats between users..."
Last month the LA Times ran this article, Facebook looks to cash in on user data, which says:
"Julee Morrison has been obsessed with Bon Jovi since she was a teenager.
So when paid ads for fan sites started popping up on the 41-year-old Salt Lake City blogger's Facebook page, she was thrilled. She described herself as a "clicking fool," perusing videos and photos of the New Jersey rockers.
Then it dawned on Morrison why all those Bon Jovi ads appeared every time she logged on to the social networking site.
"Facebook is reading my profile, my interests, the people and pages I am 'friends' with, and targeting me," Morrison said. "It's brilliant social media but it's absolutely creepy."
Three days ago, the LA Times ran this editorial, Internet data collection: The privacy line, which says:
"A good example is what Facebook is doing with the "Like" button it has persuaded more than 2.5 million websites to display. The button ostensibly lets Facebook users recommend things they encounter online — a blog post, for example — to their friends on the social network. But researcher Arnold Roosendaal of the Netherlands found that once a Facebook user has clicked on a single "Like" button, Facebook will be alerted to all of his or her subsequent visits to any Web page with a "Like" button. The company even tracks individuals who aren't Facebook members, Roosendaal reported, although it cannot identify them by name..."
Today, the LA Times published this article, Congressmen Edward Markey and Joe Barton ask Facebook to explain security vulnerability, which says:
"Congressmen Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and Joe Barton (R-Texas) have asked Facebook Inc. CEO Mark Zuckerberg to explain a security vulnerability that gave advertisers and other third parties access to users' accounts and personal information.
Security company Symantec Corp. discovered the vulnerability and alerted Facebook, which said it was fixed.
Facebook faces growing scrutiny from lawmakers and regulators concerned how it protects personal information shared by its users..."
Yesterday's LA Times ran this article, Consumer Reports: Facebook has 7.5 million underage users, which says:
"About 7.5 million active Facebook users are lying about their age -- they're younger than 13. And among those preteens, more than 5 million are under 10, according to a recent Consumer Reports survey.
That violates Facebook's own policy, meant to avoid federal regulations that apply to websites with young members. Those regulations require people who sign up to be 13 or older, the report says..."
I cite the above not because it proves privacy leaks--as is so common with Facebook--but because it proves how easily Facebook's own policies can be circumvented. So if the LA Times thinks that forcing people to have Facebook accounts in order to post comments on its web site will somehow keep things honest...um, NO! If little kids can figure out how to sign up illegally, I'm sure adults can, too.
You'd think that after publishing all of the above, the LA Times would maybe get a clue.
Here's something I guess they missed, which quotes Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, 'Facebook is the most appalling spying machine ever invented,’ says Assange, which says:
"Facebook in particular is the most appalling spying machine that has ever been invented. Here we have the world’s most comprehensive database about people, their relationships, their names, their addresses, their locations, their communications with each other, their relatives, all sitting within the United States, all accessible to US Intelligence. Facebook, Google, Yahoo, all these major US organisations have built-in interfaces for US Intelligence.
It’s not a matter of serving a subpoena, they have an interface they have developed for US Intelligence to use. Now, is it the case that Facebook is actually run by US Intelligence? No, it’s not like that. It’s simply that US Intelligence is able to bring to bear legal and political pressure to them and it’s costly for them to hand out records, one by one, so they have automated the process. Everyone should understand that when they add their friends to Facebook they are doing free work for United States intelligence agencies in building this database for them..."
Should I go on? I can! "Facebook" and "privacy leaks" go hand in hand. And the LA Times thinks it's a *GOOD* idea to force its users to join Facebook in order to post comments on its web site?
.
Showing posts with label LA Times. Show all posts
Showing posts with label LA Times. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Facebook: Why?
I don't get the whole Facebook phenomenon. Really. Let me explain.
First of all, I don't understand why companies that already have their own web sites--as ALL companies do these days!--want to send their customers/viewers to a DIFFERENT web site to contact them, comment about their TV show, or whatever. What's the point? For example, SomeCompany has their own domain, somecompany.com. It's easy to say and everybody knows they can just type somecompany.com into their browser and go to their site. But now SomeCompany has a Facebook page--and they're advertising it and telling people to go to Facebook.com/SomeCompany to post on their wall or whatever. Why? I don't want to be bothered going to some OTHER web site to contact the company! Why wouldn't I just go to their own web site? It doesn't make sense. It's redundant, and for those of us who've chosen to rid Facebook from our lives, or who never had an account to begin with and don't want one, it's impossible since we can't post without an account. I don't want an account. That's why I deleted mine. (You've heard about all the privacy issues, the use of your personal info for targeting ads, etc., right?)
I wrote recently that the LA Times is experimenting with a Facebook only commenting system, and how stupid that is. It requires that you have a Facebook account and use it if you want to post comments on the LA Times site. Why? There's no connection between the two sites--they're separate entities. Like I said in that post, it's like saying you have to open a Wells Fargo bank account if you want to use your Bank of America debit card at Bank of America. Just absolutely stupid.
So right now Facebook is the hot thing. Does anyone remember GeoCities? MySpace? AOL? "Hot" things come and go. It's silly for companies to get all wrapped up in an unrelated site, forcing their users to have accounts at another site in order to use theirs, and so on. At some point Facebook WON'T be hot any more...and then what?
As for individuals whose lives are totally wrapped up in Facebook, what can I say? How about interacting with all those "friends" in real life? In fact, how many of those "friends" do you even know in real life? And why do you want to put your life out for all to see like an open book? Even with Facebook's supposed improvements to its privacy settings, did you know:
"According to CBS News, 15 privacy and consumer protection agencies recently filed complaints against Facebook with the Federal Trade Commission. These companies stated that Facebook 'manipulates privacy settings to make users' personal information available for commercial use.'" [Source]
and:
"Many of the most popular applications, or 'apps,' on the social-networking site Facebook Inc. have been transmitting identifying information—in effect, providing access to people's names and, in some cases, their friends' names—to dozens of advertising and Internet tracking companies, a Wall Street Journal investigation has found." [Source]
Like I said before, I don't get it. At all.
.
First of all, I don't understand why companies that already have their own web sites--as ALL companies do these days!--want to send their customers/viewers to a DIFFERENT web site to contact them, comment about their TV show, or whatever. What's the point? For example, SomeCompany has their own domain, somecompany.com. It's easy to say and everybody knows they can just type somecompany.com into their browser and go to their site. But now SomeCompany has a Facebook page--and they're advertising it and telling people to go to Facebook.com/SomeCompany to post on their wall or whatever. Why? I don't want to be bothered going to some OTHER web site to contact the company! Why wouldn't I just go to their own web site? It doesn't make sense. It's redundant, and for those of us who've chosen to rid Facebook from our lives, or who never had an account to begin with and don't want one, it's impossible since we can't post without an account. I don't want an account. That's why I deleted mine. (You've heard about all the privacy issues, the use of your personal info for targeting ads, etc., right?)
I wrote recently that the LA Times is experimenting with a Facebook only commenting system, and how stupid that is. It requires that you have a Facebook account and use it if you want to post comments on the LA Times site. Why? There's no connection between the two sites--they're separate entities. Like I said in that post, it's like saying you have to open a Wells Fargo bank account if you want to use your Bank of America debit card at Bank of America. Just absolutely stupid.
So right now Facebook is the hot thing. Does anyone remember GeoCities? MySpace? AOL? "Hot" things come and go. It's silly for companies to get all wrapped up in an unrelated site, forcing their users to have accounts at another site in order to use theirs, and so on. At some point Facebook WON'T be hot any more...and then what?
As for individuals whose lives are totally wrapped up in Facebook, what can I say? How about interacting with all those "friends" in real life? In fact, how many of those "friends" do you even know in real life? And why do you want to put your life out for all to see like an open book? Even with Facebook's supposed improvements to its privacy settings, did you know:
"According to CBS News, 15 privacy and consumer protection agencies recently filed complaints against Facebook with the Federal Trade Commission. These companies stated that Facebook 'manipulates privacy settings to make users' personal information available for commercial use.'" [Source]
and:
"Many of the most popular applications, or 'apps,' on the social-networking site Facebook Inc. have been transmitting identifying information—in effect, providing access to people's names and, in some cases, their friends' names—to dozens of advertising and Internet tracking companies, a Wall Street Journal investigation has found." [Source]
Like I said before, I don't get it. At all.
.
Sunday, February 03, 2008
A letter to the LA Times
I've received permission from its author to post the following letter she wrote to the LA Times after they endorsed Obama. I thought it was excellent and wanted to share it with others. I hope anyone reading it who, like me and the letter's author, are shocked at the LA Times' endorsement of Obama will take the time to send their own letter to the Times expressing your feelings. Here it is (and I've edited out the author's last name):
"To LA Times:
I take issue with the fact that the LA TIMES endorsed Senator Barack Obama for President.
Obama has a total of two years experience in the Senate and has proven time and again that he is NOT ready to lead on Day One as Senator Clinton is.
Even your own endorsement points out that Obama's not voting for Iraq was the right move. You're kidding right? You realize he was not even in the Senate at the time so therefore he could not have voted one way or the other. You state that he claimed he was always against it, but in 2004, he said he "agreed with George Bush", so really, what you are saying is that HE LIED. Obama has voted the SAME as Hillary each and every time when it comes to Iraq. If he did not want to support the war, then why did he continually vote to fund it?
Obama claims he was against the war - BUT - it's always easier to claim you were against something that is NOW unpopular when in fact you did not have to make the decision.
Obama's true weakness is his lack of experience and substance on the issues.
His words are not actions, they are only good speeches. Obama claims to be supportive of Gay and Lesbian rights. Yet, he traveled around South Carolina with Donnie McClurkin, the anti-gay gospel singer, pro-claiming that he was a Christian. How does this fit in keeping current with GLBT issues? Does anyone really believe Obama will fight for gay rights?
I take issue with the fact that your newspaper believes that Obama has the corner on "Change." Electing the first woman President, who stands up fully for Democratic values is a HUGE change.
If Obama wants to CHANGE Washington, then why does he side with the biggest Washington Insider of them all, Ted Kennedy, and 50 or so Ex-Clinton aides - is that really "Change"
Your endorsement is a direct slap in the face to all women who are more than qualified to step into a position on day one, yet are overlooked by the younger, less experienced candidate.
Most appalling is the Times lack of research on the background of this candidate and stance on OTHER issues, instead of a singular issue. His own newspaper, the Chicago Tribune points out the ramifications of a potential Obama Presidency in their remarks:
"Obama's association with alleged influence-peddler Tony Rezko. If Obama had dealt with the Rezko issue forthrightly long ago, it might rank in public memory with Clinton's remarkable success in cattle futures.
Instead, as we've said, Obama has been too self-exculpatory. His assertion in network TV interviews last week that nobody had indications Rezko was engaging in wrongdoing strains credulity: Tribune stories linked Rezko to questionable fundraising for Gov. Rod Blagojevich in 2004 -- more than a year before the adjacent home and property purchases by the Obamas and the Rezkos.
On e more time, Senator:
You need to divulge all there is to know about that relationship. Until you do, the journalistic scrubbing and opposition research will intensify. You should have recognized Rezko as a political seducer of young talent. But given that you've not been accused of any crime or ethical breach, your Rezko history is not a deal-breaker."
Because the news media has failed in examining this candidates background, it is my firm belief that the Democrats will lose the Whitehouse if Obama is elected. Once Obama's relationship with Tony Rezko comes out into the open, we will all be left wondering why we didn't know this in advance.
Change is a word that requires Action. Hillary Clinton is the Agent of Change that will bring about that Action.
Regards,
Nancy [name removed]
P.S. I am cancelling my subscription to the Los Angeles Time due to this endorsement."
"To LA Times:
I take issue with the fact that the LA TIMES endorsed Senator Barack Obama for President.
Obama has a total of two years experience in the Senate and has proven time and again that he is NOT ready to lead on Day One as Senator Clinton is.
Even your own endorsement points out that Obama's not voting for Iraq was the right move. You're kidding right? You realize he was not even in the Senate at the time so therefore he could not have voted one way or the other. You state that he claimed he was always against it, but in 2004, he said he "agreed with George Bush", so really, what you are saying is that HE LIED. Obama has voted the SAME as Hillary each and every time when it comes to Iraq. If he did not want to support the war, then why did he continually vote to fund it?
Obama claims he was against the war - BUT - it's always easier to claim you were against something that is NOW unpopular when in fact you did not have to make the decision.
Obama's true weakness is his lack of experience and substance on the issues.
His words are not actions, they are only good speeches. Obama claims to be supportive of Gay and Lesbian rights. Yet, he traveled around South Carolina with Donnie McClurkin, the anti-gay gospel singer, pro-claiming that he was a Christian. How does this fit in keeping current with GLBT issues? Does anyone really believe Obama will fight for gay rights?
I take issue with the fact that your newspaper believes that Obama has the corner on "Change." Electing the first woman President, who stands up fully for Democratic values is a HUGE change.
If Obama wants to CHANGE Washington, then why does he side with the biggest Washington Insider of them all, Ted Kennedy, and 50 or so Ex-Clinton aides - is that really "Change"
Your endorsement is a direct slap in the face to all women who are more than qualified to step into a position on day one, yet are overlooked by the younger, less experienced candidate.
Most appalling is the Times lack of research on the background of this candidate and stance on OTHER issues, instead of a singular issue. His own newspaper, the Chicago Tribune points out the ramifications of a potential Obama Presidency in their remarks:
"Obama's association with alleged influence-peddler Tony Rezko. If Obama had dealt with the Rezko issue forthrightly long ago, it might rank in public memory with Clinton's remarkable success in cattle futures.
Instead, as we've said, Obama has been too self-exculpatory. His assertion in network TV interviews last week that nobody had indications Rezko was engaging in wrongdoing strains credulity: Tribune stories linked Rezko to questionable fundraising for Gov. Rod Blagojevich in 2004 -- more than a year before the adjacent home and property purchases by the Obamas and the Rezkos.
On e more time, Senator:
You need to divulge all there is to know about that relationship. Until you do, the journalistic scrubbing and opposition research will intensify. You should have recognized Rezko as a political seducer of young talent. But given that you've not been accused of any crime or ethical breach, your Rezko history is not a deal-breaker."
Because the news media has failed in examining this candidates background, it is my firm belief that the Democrats will lose the Whitehouse if Obama is elected. Once Obama's relationship with Tony Rezko comes out into the open, we will all be left wondering why we didn't know this in advance.
Change is a word that requires Action. Hillary Clinton is the Agent of Change that will bring about that Action.
Regards,
Nancy [name removed]
P.S. I am cancelling my subscription to the Los Angeles Time due to this endorsement."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)