When do you throw a CEO’s privacy under the bus?

It’s interesting that lots of people who really don’t like Facebook’s privacy don’t get mad when journalists and bloggers put into public view Steve Jobs’ emails to them.

Today I got an email from Mark Zuckerberg, CEO/founder of Facebook. I am not going to be the one to put that into public view until he gives me permission to.

Why not?

1. Mark is a friend. Someone I want to have a long-term relationship with and I can guarantee you that if someone took MY emails and put them into public view they wouldn’t be trusted as a real-life friend.
2. If I start doing that, other people will trust me less. Even if I didn’t care about what Mark thought of me, I do care what other people in the industry think of me and I want them to be free to send me emails without having them show up on my blog without their prior permission.
3. If he wanted it in public he could have answered me in public, there’s lots of ways to do that, including at http://facebook.com/scobleizer

That said, I asked for permission to put the email into public view because I think you all should have access to the information in it. I’ll let you know later.

What would you have done with an email if Steve Jobs or Mark Zuckerberg emailed you?

It’s amazing to me that people who are speaking up about privacy and Facebook, like Jason Calacanis, Leo Laporte, Jeff Jarvis haven’t spoken out against having Steve Jobs’ emails taken out of a private context and printed in a public one.

If you don’t speak up for Steve Jobs’ privacy, what right do you have to speak up for your own privacy? Why isn’t that hypocritical? Just because CEOs are public figures and their emails contain information that would be of interest to the public?

Shame.

UPDATE: Zuckerberg gave me permission to print this email while I was typing this post:

Hey,

We’ve been listening to all the feedback and have been trying to distill it down to the key things we need to improve. I’d like to show an improved product rather than just talk about things we might do.

We’re going to be ready to start talking about some of the new things we’ve built this week. I want to make sure we get this stuff right this time.

I know we’ve made a bunch of mistakes, but my hope at the end of this is that the service ends up in a better place and that people understand that our intentions are in the right place and we respond to the feedback from the people we serve.

I hope we’ll get a chance to catch up in person sometime this week. Let me know if you have any thoughts for me before then.

Mark

Here’s a screen shot of the email string:

Email with Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Facebook

About Robert Scoble

As Startup Liaison for Rackspace, the Open Cloud Computing Company, I travel the world with Rocky Barbanica looking for what's happening on the bleeding edge of technology and report that here.

170 thoughts on “When do you throw a CEO’s privacy under the bus?

  1. If you want to be private what the heck are you doing putting your data on someone else's service? It's a free service. If you want to be private stay the hell off and host all your data on servers and machines YOU control!

  2. I expect more from you Scoble, do you now work for facebook too?Please think what ever you want about privacy but do NOT attack me or anyone who cares about his privacy. You are blogger,your life is: public,you want everyone to know about you,to see what you share,where are you,what you eat and I really respect that.I am geek,programmer and engineer but I care about my data and dont like what facebook do with it.
    What you and Mark are talking about is money,money,money. I know it very well. Please stop talking to ppl BS about 'good,not evil companies'. There is no that BS in “company” world. It's just PR and if you don't get it then you should leave your job for few months and go to sea without iphone,android,ipad or anything and then come back. Because you are too deep in this ” tech world” and you lost your “moral boundaries” you dont know how regular guy from the street feels when someone doesn't allow him to control things he should control. And,please, don't. …. I know your answer. No, really,dont.

  3. After reading your replies,I change my mind about my earlier post. I no longer thing you are lacking integrity. Now, I think, unfortunately, that you may be a fool when it comes to both context and journalism. Still, this means, to me, that you are not to be trusted on subjects such as privacy, which, is completely dependent on context and expectation.

    The context, of, for example, journalism, is completely different than pillow talk. Do you you really not understand this. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but your responses are making a task for me.

  4. To be comic, with great power comes great responsibility. Zuckerberg, and other comedia powers, have an accountability to the public in regards to the systems that they control which impact the social networks that operate within their defined rulesets. If you were reporting intimate information that had no relation to the public sphere, such as, as a hypothetical example, his difficulties digesting seafood, then, being that it had no impact on the public sphere, then your argument would be more sound.

    Being that I consider you intelligent enough to recognize these differences in privacy in relation to degrees of power, but choosing to ignore them, I have doubts about your integrity. While, I respect your attempts to save “industry face,” I am concerned about your ability to represent consumer interest. I would ask you to be transparent about what your bottom line is, so we can know whether you are trustworthy or not.

    Right now, from my perspective, you are showing up as very sketchy.

  5. Your comparison in this article is fallacious. Jobs and Zuckerberg are, for all practical purposes, public figures. People aren't outing their private, personal emails, they're outing their emails about widespread issues that millions of people are involved in.

  6. Two of your reasons for not disclosing Zuckerberg's e-mail immediately are also reasons why I think Facebook should not have taken privately shared profile information and made it public.

  7. Why not just hang a for sale sign on your neck?

    RS’ opinion: for sale? RS’ words: for sale?

    Have you even seen:
    The Evolution of Privacy on Facebook
    http://mattmckeon.com/facebook-privacy/

    So yeah, nice shilling for your “friend”.

    That’s why MZ is a sack of excrement – actually a danger to free, private society. Somebody should be proactive in his case since history has show us countless times what happens when one is not.

    PS, who is rackspace and what part of your moral fibre did they buy? ‘Tween MZ & RS do you have any moral left which *you* still own?

    Thx for reminding me why I ignored you for the last 5 yrs. Maybe I’ll see if you’re any wiser or more ethical in 5 more.

  8. Matt, you and I share this same view: “Privacy is not only essential to life and liberty; it’s essential to the pursuit of happiness, in the broadest and deepest sense of that phrase. It’s essential to the development of individuality, of unique personality. We human beings are not just social creatures; we’re also private creatures. What we don’t share is as important as what we do share.”

    You have to applaud Mark Zuckerberg. He is smart, entrepreneurial, grasps opportunities and makes the best of them. But he launched Facebook to the success it is through not entirely noble means. And has repeated that pattern. He plays nicely with others until he can capitalize on what they can provide and then we’re all left in a daze. He has created this global network and enticed people to depart more and more information, and because we as people are a lonely race, we clamber for the opportunity to connect with others. Yes we want to share more because we have the means to. But we still want to decide who we play with. Unfortunately the playground is in someone else’s house and you’re playing with their toys. Right now I feel I’ve only been invited to the party so that I can bring another present, and if it’s not up to standard I have to sit in the corner.

    Robert did the entirely noble and fundamentally good thing here. He cares how his character is portrayed through his actions. Trust is an enormous part of any connection. And that is where Mark could improve so that his global creation remains number one. We are a group made up of intelligent people. We understand that this is a social network site, we know it has to be paid for, we know the advertisers want more, we know that if we’re told that our personal details aren’t shared to advertisers it may be that they are shared to 3rd party who then takes it to the advertiser, because somehow they are getting them. We know glitches occur because maintenance and software updates take place while the servers are online. We know that any data uploaded to someone else’s website is at our own risk. We know the law does not protect people’s online data…yet. We know that if we don’t play Facebook’s game, we will have certain toys taken away. Right now, if you leave info boxes blank and deny the opportunity for page suggestions and other connections such as employment, they get taken off you. People moved data to Bio to avoid the same scenario, Bio went public for a week…

    This next set of changes needs to be totally on the level. Changing people’s settings to show ‘Everyone’ while they sleep, removing the most fundamental control function for privacy that was installed because of member outcry – the News Feed and Wall Privacy settings. Very bad. Reinstalling those settings would go a long way to showing that Mark really does understand what we want as he claims.

    We love his product. It has proved hugely successful in its potential and power. Mark, please do not treat us like idiots anymore. If you need to make a change for financial foothold, do it honestly. We know how the world turns. Then give us the means in less than 170 options to decide how we want to proceed. Don’t allow our friends to share our data. If a glitch exposes data it shouldn’t get a notification out to all members so they can protect themselves. Get users consent to be tagged in a photo (notification of a tag request – yes or no). Inform all members of changes with a proper email or one that provides a notification. And have someone who can translate litigious jargon into something that all can understand – a precise, simple, NON condescending explanation of the changes. Treat us like an equal and we’ll feel far more at ease in your playground. You’ve a great idea and we would rather wait another month for you to totally get what your members would like, and find a solution that benefits all, than try to rush together a set of changes pulled from the crisis meeting table. As long as we know that you’re working at it, you’ll get marks for effort. Do as Robert has done. Ask first. You will begin to regain trust and hold onto far more members when the rivals go online if you just realize we understand more than you think. You’ve so much to be proud of, do it with integrity.
    Thank you so much Mr Scoble, you have provided a rare and interesting vantage point, and shown what friendship and connections are really all about.

  9. We should thank you for giving such a wonderful blog. Your site
    happens to be not only informative but also very imaginative too. We
    find a limited number of experts who can think to write technical
    articles that creatively. All of us are on the lookout for information
    on something like this. I Myself have gone through several blogs to
    build up on knowledge about this.We look forward to the next posts !!

    Have any Question

  10. The solution to both the Facebook and email issues are something privacy freaks have advocated for a long time.

    If you don’t want it spread around, either to the web or even another individual, don’t say or post it. I’m part of the dying breed of not wanting to put exhaustive personal information out into the ether.

    As far as comparing the privacy between email and Facebook, I think a more appropriate comparison would be if we as users had the opportunity to share Mark’s address, cell phone, birthdate, groups of people he likes to hang out with, schools he went to, children’s pictures, hobbies, things he likes to read or listen to, pet names, family names and anything else he specifically didn’t want shared with the world and see what kind of integrity we’d have if someone waved money in our faces to do so.

    Emails generally don’t have this quantity of information to air out. While I agree asking for permission is the right thing to do, most of the time exposure of a single email is not nearly as catastrophic.

    Unless you’re ripping the public off and being brought before a judge, of course. :)

  11. Robert, Mark could learn a great deal from you and how you handle information regardless of who it originated from. Regarding content, I think every word Mark writes be it to his family or total strangers will be very carefully worded right now.

    What would I do if Mark had emailed me? I suppose I would reciprocate the same respect for his written word as he has mine. As he and Elliott Schrage continue to deny that personal details have been given to advertisers, when we know they have, my trust in Facebook has been stripped away like the privacy settings. He has said he would give members an easier way to opt-out, when he knows full well his members don't want to have to opt-out in the first place but have been screaming for opt-in. This shows disregard for member requests, Senators requests, Privacy Commissioners requests, and indifference at the mounting class action suits.

    We are not idiots. We know he has to make a choice. Facebook's value when floated could be affected by millions of dollars if he gives members the privacy they want and less to the advertsers, or if the members quit. Either way he needs keep one side of the bed warm, and I fear he will stay snuggled up with the advertisers. Mark says he understands members want to control what they share. So why did he remove the news feed and wall privacy settings he implemented in 2006 with a hasty apology and an open letter? We also know that this is a public webspace owned by a total stranger. Most people don't post content that would harm them irreversibly. But you see, that's not the point is it?

    He says Facebook never share data with anyone we don't want. Why then do they set privacy settings back to a default of show everyone in the dead of night when the upload their new settings? Unless I click on my privacy settings EVERY time I log in, how do I know I'm not sharing data with people I don't want. If I spend the time to go through each of the 170 privacy setting options, I don't want to wonder if Facebook have changed them without my consent.

    What surprises me most is Mark Zuckerberg's surprise over the outcry. If a company does a complete U-turn on it's privacy ethic after amassing over 400 million members with it, why should they be surprised if they don't all agree with his born-again privacy is dead attitude? If you change your ideals and company code, the demographic you targeted may not follow you. Friendster…Myspace… Members are not loyal to social networks and he will not be loyal to them.

    Now we find that any information box not used is taken away. So if we don't play Mark's game by allowing our information to be replaced by page suggestions, we don't get to play at all. I commented on a friends post requesting settings help. My reply had the word privacy in it 3 times. A pop-up box warned me I couldn't submit it as facebook doesn't allow chain letters. Funny, all I see plastered over groups and pages are spam… Don't you just wish the technology would work on the right thing? I took the words privacy out and wouldn't you know it posted straight away.

    What do we want?

    We want to be notified immediately if a glitch means that members information could be left vulnerable. He has the perfect way to do so – the notification function.

    We want control over the newsfeeds put back in place. If we comment on one friends thread, we don't want the rest to immediately know. We don't do this in person. If we talk to one group of people, a spokesperson doesn't grab a chair and put fork to glass to state the conversation to the other groups.

    We don't want to have to worry that our privacy controls will be tampered with.

    We don't want to ever be automatically opted-in to share data with advertisers or 3rd party sites. A pop-up box explaining a new data sharing programme with a yes or no button, and directions on where to find this question again should we wish to change our minds would be a simple and effective way to for members to be given the opportunity to make a decision. Most people don't even know where to find the opt-out section, and if they do they find out that their friends could just share the data anyway.

    We want Only Friends to mean just that. Not only friends until one of them comments on it and then their friends can see it too.

    We want the ability to hide our comments to groups and pages from newsfeeds. Most people join a group or page because they wish to meet new people, discuss topics that most of their own friends may not share enthusiasm for. Some people join pages for support. The news that a man was beaten severeley when pages went public because he had joined a gay support page and facebook policy was that his friends need never know about it was one of thousands of terrible stories that came out when the newsfeed privacy settings were removed, and again user settings defaulted to everyone.

    We don't want a repeat of the March 27 update email (which doesn't prompt notification upon arrival and most members don't even realise they have an update folder), where you had to become a fan of Facebook's site governance fan page in order to comment on a specific document tab after reading pages of litigious material, knowing full well that even if Facebook gets its 7000 comments in the right place, a vote of no confidence is impossible because they want 33% of active members to vote against changes. We all know that the near 500 million membership number is bloated from face accounts. It was an impossible target and Mark must have laughed every time a new member pointlessly tapped away their disapproval of the new policy proposals. Oh, and now Facebook will no longer inform all members of future changes because the only way members can be kept updated is to become a fan of his site governance page and read any new proposals there.

    In other words, we want Facebook to really think about what sharing all that data built up behind walls of privacy settings, could mean if they were torn down. We want a safe, fun place where if given the choice we will probably share most of the data we upload anyway. But it will be our choice. Facebook is a great idea and can be a fantastic place to be. But I just hate the uncertainty and distrust of the next move. Its like you tell someone something in confidence and realise someone overheard. The heart-sinking feeling of no control, wondering if that person will keep your confidence. You don't want to leave the area in case the whispering starts as soon as you go…

    Thankfully Robert you have restored my faith that some people know that the age of privacy isn't quite over just yet. Yes we might choose to let someone share what we say, but we'd like to be asked first.

    1. Google’s business model is similar to Facebook’s in that it’s primary profit stream is based on advertising dollars. However, Google can do this without delivering my data to advertisers — rather the advertisers are delivered to me, based on my data. I find it very hard to believe that Facebook can’t be profitable without handing out my info willy-nilly. If people felt their data was more secure, they’d share more. Mark believes the opposite is the case. He has argued that by making info less private, people will begin to share more. This just isn’t true. People will be more guarded, and FB’s advertising algorithms will be less successful for it. I’ve removed every bit of personal info about my likes and dislikes from movies to TV to political affiliations and faith practices for just this reason. This makes it harder for FB to capitalize on my interests. Better privacy, if implemented thoughtfully, will improve their business model, not hamper it. They really have no excuse, which makes me wonder about their deeper motives…

  12. I never said it was perfect.

    And my page is still there; just the comments were deleted. Why would Facebook delete my little comments–me, a common schmuck–if they have “thousands” of pages/groups criticizing them is my point.

    If they had thousands of pages/groups that criticize them why would two comments made within six hours of each other matter? Obviously, facebook doesn't want people knowing how to delete their accounts but what can ya do against Big Brother to be honest.

  13. Absolutely agree with you Robert Scoble!

    @Robert Scoble: you are a nice person, a real gentleman being a true friend not a traitor and you obviously would have gained much high respect after this expression and others of yours for your real noble virtues!

  14. Robert, your friend writes to you like the people who write his press releases and the way he writes a response for the Washington Post. Seems like you guys have a very formal friendship, kinda like a company CEO has w/the press ;)

  15. haha. thats what am saying. You people are over-reacting. Media makes news. People make gossips.

    Regarding your deleted page / whatever, ask Facebook support & check their privacy policy. I hope you haven't done anything wrong. In that case, your page can be restored. Don't cry foul for every little thing as if the world is perfect place to live in.

  16. I don’t believe for a moment these were Facebook “mistakes.” They were part of a profit driven strategic business plan. If they were “mistakes” at all they were ethical ones. Mr Zuckerberg’s recent testimony before Congress on privacy where he stated that American’s don’t value privacy and want more and more of their information made public proves he either grossly misses the mark on personal privacy or that he will say anything to increase his personal wealth and influence. Either of these are reasons not to trust Mr. Zuckerberg and any endeavor he is connected with.

    Unfortunately, despite the crocodile tears of “remorse” the fact remains that thousands of people’s personal and financial information is in the hands of multiple companies they never intended to have it with no options to have it removed.

  17. OK, let’s excuse my poor bad english (i’m a froggy-french).

    It is just OBVIOUS Scobleiser is avoiding the real discussion and i’m suprised he is persisting in is mail-privacy-analogy sophism.

    DEAR SCOBLEIZER, the point is not that much about privacy infos, than about the fact that your sweetie friend mr.Zuckerberg has set different rule DURING the game.

    And the fact that he is doing his mea culpa (apologies for thoses not speaking latin) to you or Donald Graham’ newspap’, meaning to a friend and to an administrator of FB is even more shameful. PUBLIC is the one who have been swindled, so if this mail to you was really private it’s really too bad.

  18. Robert – I think you should offer Zuckerberg to become his official publicist and get paid for it. That way at least you might get paid handsomely for acting as FB's online billboard.

  19. Hi Robert, I never heard of your blog until a few minutes ago, but you have my respect for wanting to do the decent and smart thing by not being a dweeb and compromising your relationship with Mark.

    I recently started the “Facebook Sold Out” campaign in response to their latest atrocity involving removing the choice to make a welcome tab the landing page for fan pages. Lots of small and medium sized business were going to hurt badly from that one. I was all set to follow up with another missive when they did backtrack, after everyone's combined voices raised enough of a fuss. I have to guess thousands of people spoke up and were heard, since so many high profile people spoke up and notified people on their lists.

    That change of policy, albeit clumsy, gave me hope again for Facebook. I've been on there for nearly 5 years (started in college) and the apparent spirit and intent of it has changed so much it's grieved me.

    But even if I were any kind of friend of Zuckerberg's, heck, even a distant connection, I wouldn't squander my relationship on breaking this story and in so doing, a relationship where important perspectives and information are shared.

    Well said and well done, Robert. For what it's worth, I'm subscribing!

  20. Exactly. I think Scoble should have sent Zuckerberg an email stating there has been a change in his email policy:

    “Mark, I'm doing some things with my email account that you will be VERY impressed with. Don't worry, if you head to Scobleizer.com, there's some privacy settings somewhere on the page, or maybe 4-5 pages deep, where you can have very granular control over how your email to me is handled. I know, it used to be assumed that email was a private thing, but the world is changing. If you haven't already explicitly told me how to handle your email, I'll just assume you mean that you want anyone to be able to read it because that's just how things are now. So, I'm going to post this and all other emails to my blog until you setup your privacy settings. How can I not? It's all about selling personal information for page views and money, just like you do. – Scoble”.

  21. Don't you think though that this is the sort of conversation that happens in private, instead of “Hey guys, Mark Zuckerberg sent me an email; I'll let you know later if I can share it!”

  22. I think this was a funny email over which to have an internal debate about the ethics of publishing friends' emails. It's basically a press release. Facebook is in the midst of a pretty big PR crisis — if the company was public, Zuckerberg's net worth would have dropped $300 million last week in the time it takes someone to write the words “dumb f**cks” — and they need to get the word out about their earnestness. I can see why you'd write back to Zuckerberg confirming that you can publish it, but I don't understand the hand-wringing. If you do want to be his friend you'll be able to tell what communication from him is in his capacity as the face of facebook.

    PS: Can you reply with his personal email address? I'd like to let him know he's no Steve Jobs, so can stop trying to imitate the big guy with his little hoodie “uniform”. Thanks!

  23. Robert I’m familiar with your work but it seems to me you threw Leo, Jason and others under the bus for being concerned about FB’s lack of concern for privacy. I’d think you would be concerned for the privacy of the people that follow you and not FBs Zuck.

  24. In reference to Scoble's, “An email is implicitly TO YOU and NOT to “the public.”, don't forget that Facebook used to be TO YOUR FRIENDS and NOT to “the public”. Why would you be concerned about the Mark's privacy when he obviously isn't concerned about anyone's privacy, much less yours?

  25. There is a major difference between making Joe Schomoe’s e-mails to someone public and making Mark Zuckerman’s e-mails public. Besides the fact that Joe Schmoe is someone who does not exist in real life, in the example I’m making, Joe Schmoe is likely only known by his family, his friends and his co-workers. Thus, he falls under standards of privacy that many of us journalists talk about.

    However, Mark Zuckerberg is a public figure. Like him, hate him, think he’s goofy looking, he’s someone people know. Either they know him by name or they know who he is. Thus, he falls under a much different level of privacy protection. It’d be the same deal if Steve Jobs sent an e-mail. If he says something newsworthy, the burden is on him to tell you in the e-mail that he doesn’t want it disseminated.

    I realize that Zuckerberg gave you permission to post the e-mail. I also appreciate the fact that you’re trying to be fair and that you’re trying to cultivate a long-term friendship with him. However, the intense debate about privacy is one that would make his comments about Facebook’s issues with privacy controls germane to discussion, regardless of forum.

    I would also be curious to see Zuckerberg directly address that infamous thread where he bragged about getting private information from a whole lot of people. Yes, I know he was 19 then and is 25 now. But with him having to backpedal and explain himself on privacy, that post is looking more and more ill-considered by the day.

  26. There is no privacy issue here. Jobs (if that’s who is writing the emails, I wonder) knows precisely what he’s doing, and assumes any fan email he responds to will go public.

  27. I guess this is where the “friends” of FB execs who happen to be bloggers all suddenly start coming out with coincedental blog posts about how noone should really want their privacy anyways.

  28. “What do you think of Zuckerberg's letter? Does he sound sincere to you? Willing to give Facebook and its upcoming privacy reboot the benefit of the doubt? Or are you ready to jump ship for good?”

    Please tell us what you think [FOR FREE!] so we can sell that user information to advertisers [FO
    R A PROFIT]. Social networks make billionaires out of dweebs who are only to happy to pass every bit of your information on to advertisers etc. Why would I want to post everything about me on the internet so every person on the planet can have access to it to do who knows what with it? Didn't they write a book about this [George Orwell's 1984] or more recently make a movie [The Matrix]? If I want my FRIENDS to know what I'm having for breakfast right now, I can pick up some ancient technology called the Cell Phone.

  29. Never was on FAKEBOOK demeans the quality of the word FRIEND…amongst other things,, they NEVER cared about privacy…Another DOT CON

  30. Facebook: I am disappointed that Facebook accounts are so easily compromised. While hackers are sending out viruses via machines, it is people who are affected most. I am on Facebook so that I can stay connected with friends and family. I have been hacked, sent a virus and there are horrible messages being sent out to my friends as a result. My personal reputation is more important than a FB account. If I wait this out, will I regain trust and respect?

  31. I find it ironic that you are protecting his privacy by giving him the option to “opt-in” while he is busy torpedoing our privacy by giving us the option to “opt-out” or no option at all.

  32. Facebook: I am disappointed in how easy it is for a FB account to be compromised. I am on FB for the connection I keep with friends and family. As a victim of hackers and a very nasty virus I am still managing damage control. I would delete my account but I feel like waiting for the hacking to end. I do this so that my reputation can be maintained and a machine/virus/hacker can’t spoil the purpose of social network.

  33. So much would be easier if we could just shoot from the hip without asking. Think of how many awesome, entertaining and insightful stories could be written if we published off-the-record comments? With a friend (a real one), I think we have to assume we're off the record and confirm what we can run. Without this step, the risks are huge: You could lose a professional contact. You could lose a friend. You risk your reputation with other sources. You risk your reputation with your readers (with the shitstorm that follows a breach of trust). Props to Scoble for taking the obviously simple and fast step to confirm.

  34. Reminds me of the horrible joke and the punchline is “Trust me.” Why is this not the least bit surprising coming from Zuckerberg? What a godforsaken slime bag.

  35. Or there's the other question – when do you use your friends to link-bait a non-entity blog post?

    There's absolutely nothing in the email that is earth-shattering, so not sure why such the hoo-ha about it all…

  36. From what I read Zuckerman has:
    1. Cheated/misled his collage colleagues out of the business
    2. Boasted in private that his members are stupid to trust him
    3. Implemented numerous sharing policies without user permission
    4. Purposefully implemented option as default and made control difficult
    5. Cancelled discussion groups on FB that sought to galvanize awareness of the issues
    6. Use members as unpaid spokespersons for FB business clients
    7. Lay ownership claims to member data submitted to the network
    8. Headed a company voted by privacy organizations as being a big violator of privacy
    9. Hired a rubberstamp security agency (with a board composed of ad agency insiders) to endorse his PR which only addressed a subset of the complaints/issues.
    10. He just launched a platform that makes it even easier for companies to get FB member’s data when they use the web.
    Is there a pattern of deceit here? Worse, after most of these incidences he is quick to the “mea culpa” – but whatever really changes?

  37. I suggest everyone read Lee Siegels book – Against the Machine: Being Human in the Age of the Electronic Mob.

    Everything you need to know about social sites is clearly written within those pages. Social sites were created so companies could make money off you during your down time. If companies could advertise to you in your sleep they would. There is no end to corporate greed and imagination.

    Thanks for the P.R release on this email. You couldnt be circle jerking this guy more. Your credibility and concern goes out the window the minute you state its for a CEO who just sold 400 millions peoples personal information without flinching. You dont but the crap he is trying to sell you, but you have no problem pitching it to us. You sold your integrity to name drop a kid. Honorable stuff dude.

  38. With all of the discussion and concern, the bottom-line is trust and integrity. If FB & all of us just follow those 10 little laws namely # 8 & 9 we'd all be ok.

    # 8 – You shall not steal.

    # 9 – You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

    Sorry, but, I think its that simple. No technical discussion needed IMHO.

    Jason

Comments are closed.