Facebook: protecting your e-mails from your friends
A couple of days ago, the world of itblogging spread around the news - the famous blogger Robert Scoble was banned on Facebook (already unbanned ) .
Interesting circumstances. Robert tested the new script, which allows you to collect e-mail addresses of his friends on Facebook, for later contact with the same people in another social network - Plaxo. Unfortunately, the Facebook application platform allows you to get almost all the information about friends, except their emails; so the script was the only option. But, since Robert has about 5000 contacts on Facebook, the script’s activity did not go unnoticed, and it was closed for violating the ToS. By the way, the script was worth it - about 1800 of them were already registered on Plaxo, and Robert was able to establish contact with them there.
But the fact that Facebook is evil and bad, and does not allow to get information from it (although it accepts others with joy, for example, reads GMail contacts) is not at all new. I was much more surprised by the very polar attitude to what happened. For example, Michael Arrington, from one of Techcrunch’s most popular blogs, thinks Robert is wrong : “Besides the script question, Facebook has a very good reason for protecting email addresses - the privacy of users. Perhaps Robert believes that my contacts should be easily downloadable from Facebook, but I can assume otherwise. I have to decide, not him. ” Some lesser-known bloggers supported Michael: Robert Scoble is an industrial spy , I want Facebook to protect my email address , Scoble: freedom fighter or thief? .
')
The word "surprised" reflects my emotions to a small extent. People who volunteer on a Facebook profile put "show my address to my friends", they say that they do not want this email address to be known to their friends. Something like if a person gives me a business card, but requires me not to call the phone numbers in it. At the same time, they absolutely do not notice that, for example, the postal service does not protect their data at all - and if the same Michael ever wrote a letter to Robert, then Robert can upload his address book with Michael’s address on Facebook (see interesting discussion: do ban facebook ).
For example, the behavior of some competing services:
1. Moykrug is most open. Allows you to download CSV, which has all the contact details of friends - including emails, phones, etc. This CSV can be easily imported into the same Gmail. On the other hand, unlike Facebook, it does not allow to “close” an email from friends.
2. Vkontakte most closed. He does not even allow the option to show e-mail to friends; in the end, all are tied to an inconvenient and unreliable internal mail system (before address exchange).
3. Mailers, not being social networks in the usual sense (although some do not agree ), almost always allow you to export a notebook. Modern enough cell phones too.
4. And again about Facebook: it not only does not allow to export addresses, it also does not allow to use them conveniently on the profile pages. All addresses are in the form of pictures, so the selection does not work - you need to type the address in the mailer manually.
My opinion: contact information - it is for that and contact, so that it can be contacted. In social networks, I add to contacts only people whom I trust, and with rare exceptions - only people whom I know personally; I would give my business card to all of them, so I can freely enter my email and phone number. Including, I trust them more than distant companies from me like Facebook. Therefore, I support the method of Moykrug.
Information should not be hostage to the service. Information must be protected from those from whom you want to protect it, and fully open to those to whom you want to open it.
Apparently, Michael Arrington, like other pro-Facebook bloggers, believes more in companies than in people. Probably, a considerable influence on this is exerted by the fact that in the case of the American legal system one can be almost certain that a large company will not do anything wrong, whereas people can. But maybe it’s just not worth sharing information with people that you cannot trust them with?
And not really about privacy, but Robert's related post: Erased , about what happens when a company decides to erase you: “I was erased. It was erased so quickly and completely that my friends did not understand what had happened. And not only was I erased, but all the information that others wrote on my wall was also erased. My photos have been erased. My videos have been erased. And all YOUR information associated with them has been erased. ” In general, this moment is familiar to many people because of the LJ bans; but once again raises the issue of control over your information.
PS: and yes, I totally agree with Mark Hopkins with Mashable that the civil war in Kenya is much more important .
Originally published on LiveJournal. Mirritil.livejournal.com
Interesting circumstances. Robert tested the new script, which allows you to collect e-mail addresses of his friends on Facebook, for later contact with the same people in another social network - Plaxo. Unfortunately, the Facebook application platform allows you to get almost all the information about friends, except their emails; so the script was the only option. But, since Robert has about 5000 contacts on Facebook, the script’s activity did not go unnoticed, and it was closed for violating the ToS. By the way, the script was worth it - about 1800 of them were already registered on Plaxo, and Robert was able to establish contact with them there.
But the fact that Facebook is evil and bad, and does not allow to get information from it (although it accepts others with joy, for example, reads GMail contacts) is not at all new. I was much more surprised by the very polar attitude to what happened. For example, Michael Arrington, from one of Techcrunch’s most popular blogs, thinks Robert is wrong : “Besides the script question, Facebook has a very good reason for protecting email addresses - the privacy of users. Perhaps Robert believes that my contacts should be easily downloadable from Facebook, but I can assume otherwise. I have to decide, not him. ” Some lesser-known bloggers supported Michael: Robert Scoble is an industrial spy , I want Facebook to protect my email address , Scoble: freedom fighter or thief? .
')
The word "surprised" reflects my emotions to a small extent. People who volunteer on a Facebook profile put "show my address to my friends", they say that they do not want this email address to be known to their friends. Something like if a person gives me a business card, but requires me not to call the phone numbers in it. At the same time, they absolutely do not notice that, for example, the postal service does not protect their data at all - and if the same Michael ever wrote a letter to Robert, then Robert can upload his address book with Michael’s address on Facebook (see interesting discussion: do ban facebook ).
For example, the behavior of some competing services:
1. Moykrug is most open. Allows you to download CSV, which has all the contact details of friends - including emails, phones, etc. This CSV can be easily imported into the same Gmail. On the other hand, unlike Facebook, it does not allow to “close” an email from friends.
2. Vkontakte most closed. He does not even allow the option to show e-mail to friends; in the end, all are tied to an inconvenient and unreliable internal mail system (before address exchange).
3. Mailers, not being social networks in the usual sense (although some do not agree ), almost always allow you to export a notebook. Modern enough cell phones too.
4. And again about Facebook: it not only does not allow to export addresses, it also does not allow to use them conveniently on the profile pages. All addresses are in the form of pictures, so the selection does not work - you need to type the address in the mailer manually.
My opinion: contact information - it is for that and contact, so that it can be contacted. In social networks, I add to contacts only people whom I trust, and with rare exceptions - only people whom I know personally; I would give my business card to all of them, so I can freely enter my email and phone number. Including, I trust them more than distant companies from me like Facebook. Therefore, I support the method of Moykrug.
Information should not be hostage to the service. Information must be protected from those from whom you want to protect it, and fully open to those to whom you want to open it.
Apparently, Michael Arrington, like other pro-Facebook bloggers, believes more in companies than in people. Probably, a considerable influence on this is exerted by the fact that in the case of the American legal system one can be almost certain that a large company will not do anything wrong, whereas people can. But maybe it’s just not worth sharing information with people that you cannot trust them with?
And not really about privacy, but Robert's related post: Erased , about what happens when a company decides to erase you: “I was erased. It was erased so quickly and completely that my friends did not understand what had happened. And not only was I erased, but all the information that others wrote on my wall was also erased. My photos have been erased. My videos have been erased. And all YOUR information associated with them has been erased. ” In general, this moment is familiar to many people because of the LJ bans; but once again raises the issue of control over your information.
PS: and yes, I totally agree with Mark Hopkins with Mashable that the civil war in Kenya is much more important .
Originally published on LiveJournal. Mirritil.livejournal.com
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/18353/
All Articles