Facebook's Spying on you

[sportsfroma2]

I searched and didn't find anything related to this, sorry if it's a repost...

Then on Friday, just hours after Facebook had scored some points with its modifications to Beacon, Stefan Berteau, senior research engineer at CA's Threat Research Group, wrote in a note about Beacon's until-then unknown ability to monitor logged-off users' activities and send the data back to Facebook.

Users aren't informed that data on their activities at these sites is flowing back to Facebook, nor given the option to block that information from being transmitted, according to Berteau.

If users have ever checked the option for Facebook to "remember me"-- which saves users from having to log on to the site upon every return to it-- Facebook can tie their activities on third-party Beacon sites directly to them, even if they're logged off and have opted out of the broadcast. If they have never chosen this option, the information still flows back to Facebook, although without it being tied to their Facebook ID, according to Berteau.

Facebook Admits Ad Service Tracks Logged-Off Users - Yahoo! News

Turns out that Facebook is tracking user activity on the internets without the user even having to be logged in to Facebook. Sites that use Facebook's advertising platform, Beacon, will transmit data back to Facebook even when the user isn't logged in.

Facebook was supposed to allow users to limit the amount of data they collect and track, but it still doesn't change the fact that they are transmitting information when they absolutely should not be.

They still claim that the information is anonymous, but you just went on notice, Facebook. You've done almost no wrong up until now, but this takes the e-cake.

G4 - The Feed - Facebook Violates Privacy Like Whoa

If you’ve never signed up for Facebook and believe it therefore can’t track you to collect data on what you’ve been doing online, think again.

Because, “Facebook’s controversial Beacon ad system tracks the activities of all users of its third-party partner sites, including people who have never signed up with Facebook or who have deactivated their accounts, “says CA (Computer Associates), according to the IDG News Service

Quoting the company’s Stefan Berteau, the story says Beacon captures detailed data on what users do on the external partner sites and sends it back to Facebook along with users’ IP addresses.

And it happens even if you delete the Facebook cookie, the story declares.

Says Berteau, “The Facebook JavaScript [code] is still called by the affiliate site, and the information is passed in.”

In the case of users without accounts, or with deactivated accounts, the data isn’t tied to a Facebook ID, IDG has him stating, continuing IP addresses, however, “are well known to provide a variety of information about users, and they have in some cases been used to identify individuals.”

And, “The information that Beacon captures includes the addresses of Web pages the user visits, and a string with the action taken in the partner site, Berteau says.

The revelations, “build on Berteau’s report last week that Beacon stealthily tracks the activities of users on affiliate Beacon sites even if they are logged off from Facebook and previously declined having their activities reported back to their Facebook friends,” says the story, adding:

“Over the weekend, Facebook confirmed that Berteau’s report on Friday was accurate, but said that it deletes the data it receives under these circumstances.”

Stay tuned.

http://www.p2pnet.net/story/14228

[hexydes]

Now who thinks they're worth $15,000,000,000?

[AdmiralAkbar]

Microsoft apparently is thinking that $15 bil number.



This is just one of the many examples of a "free" service trying to find a way to actually generate revenue.

[Negotiator]

Originally Posted by Patlanta

Who claimed facebook was worth 15 bil?

Microsoft did when they bought 2-3% of the company.

[Dont Punch Babies]

Originally Posted by AdmiralAkbar

Microsoft apparently is thinking that $15 bil number.



This is just one of the many examples of a "free" service trying to find a way to actually generate revenue.

And that was just a small minority ownership sale...they were saying the site is supposedly worth in the 240billion range.

[Sagnastys Finest]

trust me...there are creepier things out there than that

my dad's company paid for him to take classes at Microsoft last year (i guess they offer them for Computer Engineers like he is) and he got to know some of the engineers. they told him that there is software where they can not only see what you are doing on the internet, but they can also see everything you are doing on the computer, as well as what programs you have, as long as it is connected to the internet. talk about creepy

however, they cant use it because of the privacy laws and crap

[sportsfroma2]

I understand trying to make money or whatever, but is installing spyware the way to do things?? Thats pretty much what they're doing IMO.

[hexydes]

Originally Posted by Patlanta

Who claimed facebook was worth 15 bil?

Microsoft, and Facebook themselves have implied as much as well.

[AdmiralAkbar]

Originally Posted by Sagnasty's Finest

trust me...there are creepier things out there than that

my dad's company paid for him to take classes at Microsoft last year (i guess they offer them for Computer Engineers like he is) and he got to know some of the engineers. they told him that there is software where they can not only see what you are doing on the internet, but they can also see everything you are doing on the computer, as well as what programs you have, as long as it is connected to the internet. talk about creepy

however, they cant use it because of the privacy laws and crap

This has been around for years. You can easily remote control someone elses computer (you have their desktop in a window on your computer, have control of their mouse and keyboard) from anywhere. You can easily lock out their keyboard and mouse controls as well.

Originally Posted by Don't Punch Babies

And that was just a small minority ownership sale...they were saying the site is supposedly worth in the 240billion range.

Ah "worth". What a great estimation. It is things like this that caused the first "tech bubble' to burst a few years ago, something the tech sector is just now starting to recover from. Such a great idea to attach a number like that to a website that is completely free to everyone. So you can make a few pennies in ad revenue, so what? Until they have a proven way to turn users into $$$ they are just another Skype.

Originally Posted by sportsfroma2

I understand trying to make money or whatever, but is installing spyware the way to do things?? Thats pretty much what they're doing IMO.

Data mining is the next generation of ads, and a proven way to get alot more ad dollars for your site. It is usually highly unethical though, so people try to do it very casually. Think about it this way: Facebook tracks where you go on the internet. It sees that you go to sports sites alot. So the ads it shows you while you are in Facebook will be sports related, making you much more likely to actually click on them (which is how they get their revenue).

[Negotiator]

Whoa whoa whoa, let's get some numbers straight. Facebook has not said they're worth a quarter trillion. Microsoft paid $240,000,000 for a 1.6% stake. At that rate, Microsoft is saying that 100% of facebook is $15,000,000,000. That said, I've soured a bit on the seemingly inevitable IPO. The darling of the tech world apparently had some bugs they weren't telling people about.

[Spacemaker]

Is this the type of spying that I prevent when I block 3rd party cookies in my security settings?

[Raoul F-Duke]

Originally Posted by Patlanta

And what is wrong with that?

I can only imagine the cost it takes to run something that requires the space, bandwidth, and processing that facebook demands.

Not to mention the office space in Palo Alto, their employees, and engineers.

[Babies Need Tickets]

Isn't this news like a year old? (Not saying search function, but I really think this news has been around awhile).

[Fingercuffs]

Imagine their surprise when nearly every RCMB'er visited the site with 2 Girls 1 Cup.

The joke was on them when they opened it up.


That's what you get for spying on us, morans!

[AvgMSUJoe]

Originally Posted by Fingercuffs

Imagine their surprise when nearly every RCMB'er visited the site with 2 Girls 1 Cup.

The joke was on them when they opened it up.


That's what you get for spying on us, morans!

Never did...
Still don't know exactly what that was all about, but it sounded like I wouldn't want to see whatever it was.

[Havoq]

Originally Posted by Don't Punch Babies

And that was just a small minority ownership sale...they were saying the site is supposedly worth in the 240billion range.

No one ever alluded to them being worth 240 billion you are either 10% or on crack. I'd love to see some advice or a link, Facebook shouldn't even be estimated to be worth 15 B and I love the damn site.

[hexydes]

No one is saying that Facebook is worth $15 billion. That number comes because that number (or something close to it, I don't know that they've ever made it official) is sort of what Facebook themselves unrealistically were implying they were worth, and Microsoft sort of verified that by paying $240 million for a small share of their company.

Obviously, $15 billion is utter horse****. Facebook is only worth what they make back in real money, which is nowhere near $15 billion. They are simply valuing the potential (present and future) worth of their company at $15 billion. I'm pretty sure they even know they're not worth that much, but simply are trying to generate hype before an IPO.

That myth is only being further purported by the idiot tech news community, who writes outlandish stories about how Facebook is the new Google and might be worth even more than Google.

You remember classmates.com? And then MySpace completely displaced them? You remember MySpace.com? And then how Facebook completely displaced them? You remember Facebook? And then how....

[AdmiralAkbar]

Originally Posted by hexydes

No one is saying that Facebook is worth $15 billion. That number comes because that number (or something close to it, I don't know that they've ever made it official) is sort of what Facebook themselves unrealistically were implying they were worth, and Microsoft sort of verified that by paying $240 million for a small share of their company.

Obviously, $15 billion is utter horse****. Facebook is only worth what they make back in real money, which is nowhere near $15 billion. They are simply valuing the potential (present and future) worth of their company at $15 billion. I'm pretty sure they even know they're not worth that much, but simply are trying to generate hype before an IPO.

That myth is only being further purported by the idiot tech news community, who writes outlandish stories about how Facebook is the new Google and might be worth even more than Google.

You remember classmates.com? And then MySpace completely displaced them? You remember MySpace.com? And then how Facebook completely displaced them? You remember Facebook? And then how....

Facebook needs to be able to turn their hits into actual revenue, which is quite the daunting task. Aside from idiots willing to buy Facebook Virtual Gifts, they are running a FREE service. You cannot make money from a FREE service. Ask Skype about that. Increasing volume doesn't matter because 1 million x $0 = $0. Unless they plan on increasing their ad revenue by about 1000%, they are going to have to come up with something else.

[air sparta]

That's criminal, Jim!

[SpartanGreen78]

Originally Posted by AdmiralAkbar

Facebook needs to be able to turn their hits into actual revenue, which is quite the daunting task. Aside from idiots willing to buy Facebook Virtual Gifts, they are running a FREE service. You cannot make money from a FREE service. Ask Skype about that. Increasing volume doesn't matter because 1 million x $0 = $0. Unless they plan on increasing their ad revenue by about 1000%, they are going to have to come up with something else.

You can make tons of money from a free service--ad revenue. There's a non-financial cost to users, which is diverting a small amount of attention to the advertising. And as anyone who knows anything about advertising will attest---ad revenue is based on impressions---how many people will see your ad. In terms of Facebook, a LOT of people at least see those ads. Are they making direct revenue from users, of course not, it's minimal and negligible--but it also doesn't matter.

Considering the only real costs of Facebook is the infrastructure--I'm guessing the marginal cost of adding additional users is pretty close to nil. Most of the data that appears in facebook is 3rd party--what they're really spending money on is data mining, which is obviously being paid for by their revenue.

[AdmiralAkbar]

Originally Posted by SpartanGreen78

You can make tons of money from a free service--ad revenue. There's a non-financial cost to users, which is diverting a small amount of attention to the advertising. And as anyone who knows anything about advertising will attest---ad revenue is based on impressions---how many people will see your ad. In terms of Facebook, a LOT of people at least see those ads. Are they making direct revenue from users, of course not, it's minimal and negligible--but it also doesn't matter.

Considering the only real costs of Facebook is the infrastructure--I'm guessing the marginal cost of adding additional users is pretty close to nil. Most of the data that appears in facebook is 3rd party--what they're really spending money on is data mining, which is obviously being paid for by their revenue.

Actually, I disagree... to a point. You are right in that you can make money off of ad revenue. But in order to do actually make a significant ammount (enough to justify company worth of $1billion for example), you have to get a MASSIVE ammount of hits on your site, as well as a fairly large number of people that will actually click on the ads. Facebook as it exists today is more popular with many people because of its clean interface; that is to say, its interface that is free of massive banner ads, annoying sound/video ads and popups. For a quick test, go to MySpace and Facebook | Welcome to Facebook! and observe the differences in this respect. Facebook is stuck, in that if it changes its interface to include a large number of ads, it could turn off the very users it needs to survive. Also, do you know how much a company like Facebook gets for an unclicked banner ad on its site? Statistically zero.

Also, as Facebook has evolved to include more pictures and video, their infrastructure costs are increasing. I don't suppose you know anything about enterprise level hosting/data centers... it's not cheap.

[SpartanGreen78]

Originally Posted by AdmiralAkbar

Actually, I disagree... to a point. You are right in that you can make money off of ad revenue. But in order to do actually make a significant ammount (enough to justify company worth of $1billion for example), you have to get a MASSIVE ammount of hits on your site, as well as a fairly large number of people that will actually click on the ads. Facebook as it exists today is more popular with many people because of its clean interface; that is to say, its interface that is free of massive banner ads, annoying sound/video ads and popups. For a quick test, go to MySpace and Facebook | Welcome to Facebook! and observe the differences in this respect. Facebook is stuck, in that if it changes its interface to include a large number of ads, it could turn off the very users it needs to survive. Also, do you know how much a company like Facebook gets for an unclicked banner ad on its site? Statistically zero.

Also, as Facebook has evolved to include more pictures and video, their infrastructure costs are increasing. I don't suppose you know anything about enterprise level hosting/data centers... it's not cheap.

I see where you're coming from--and I agree that Facebook is overvaluated according to the numbers thrown around here. But I think you made my point in that in terms of advertising on facebook, less is more. Myspace is a cluster****** of crap. Facebook is clean--there's rich content and very little noise. So in which interface is advertising going to grab more attention---especially if they're using data-mining to target the ads.

And it's irrelevant whether people click-thru internet advertising--that's a secondary objective. The first is the impression--putting the image, the message, the brand recognition and identity in the mind. I don't know Facebook's impression rates, but I'd assume they're pretty good--which translates into value for the advertisers. Hell--what's the ROI on a $2.5M super bowl commercial? Does Bud Light recoup the tens of millions they spend on producing ads and buying media as a direct result of the ad? No--it's indirect. The ROI doesn't come from sales, it comes from the branding.

Yes--enterprise server systems are expensive. But I still maintain that the marginal cost of another user--the price of adding storage and computing capacity--is negligible, since each additional user adds more value for advertisers as described above.

[AdmiralAkbar]

Originally Posted by SpartanGreen78

I see where you're coming from--and I agree that Facebook is overvaluated according to the numbers thrown around here. But I think you made my point in that in terms of advertising on facebook, less is more. Myspace is a cluster****** of crap. Facebook is clean--there's rich content and very little noise. So in which interface is advertising going to grab more attention---especially if they're using data-mining to target the ads.

And it's irrelevant whether people click-thru internet advertising--that's a secondary objective. The first is the impression--putting the image, the message, the brand recognition and identity in the mind. I don't know Facebook's impression rates, but I'd assume they're pretty good--which translates into value for the advertisers. Hell--what's the ROI on a $2.5M super bowl commercial? Does Bud Light recoup the tens of millions they spend on producing ads and buying media as a direct result of the ad? No--it's indirect. The ROI doesn't come from sales, it comes from the branding.

Yes--enterprise server systems are expensive. But I still maintain that the marginal cost of another user--the price of adding storage and computing capacity--is negligible, since each additional user adds more value for advertisers as described above.

My prediction is that once there is an IPO or a corperate buyout for big $$$, the pressure is going to come down really hard to instantly drum up ad revenue. And then the ads are going to start. And as they do that, users will turn away for the next Facebook; some startup that has a new idea and a fresh and useful look. And I'm no ad exec, but a quick check of a few Facebook pages show exactly zero ads that are trying to get "branding" of anything. They are mostly text based: "Click Here to get $100 Hotels in NYC!" side bar ads, "Meet Local Singles" pictures with no company name on them, etc. These are not indirect advertizing methods, but rather ads that are trying to get you to click on them and visit their site.

And here is where people will get stuck up: Google makes massive loads of cash with ad revenue, so why won't Facebook have a similar patern of success? This won't happen because Google is a "portal" (the whole point of going there is to find a path to somewhere else), while Facebook is an "end-point" (you usually don't go to Facebook looking for another site). As far as hosting goes, the cost of a few users is practically zero. But when you are in the business of volume (as you need to be to get profit from ads alone) this number can climb quickly.

[SpartanGreen78]

Originally Posted by AdmiralAkbar

My prediction is that once there is an IPO or a corperate buyout for big $$$, the pressure is going to come down really hard to instantly drum up ad revenue. And then the ads are going to start. And as they do that, users will turn away for the next Facebook; some startup that has a new idea and a fresh and useful look. And I'm no ad exec, but a quick check of a few Facebook pages show exactly zero ads that are trying to get "branding" of anything. They are mostly text based: "Click Here to get $100 Hotels in NYC!" side bar ads, "Meet Local Singles" pictures with no company name on them, etc. These are not indirect advertizing methods, but rather ads that are trying to get you to click on them and visit their site.

And here is where people will get stuck up: Google makes massive loads of cash with ad revenue, so why won't Facebook have a similar patern of success? This won't happen because Google is a "portal" (the whole point of going there is to find a path to somewhere else), while Facebook is an "end-point" (you usually don't go to Facebook looking for another site). As far as hosting goes, the cost of a few users is practically zero. But when you are in the business of volume (as you need to be to get profit from ads alone) this number can climb quickly.

Google doesn't make the lion's share of it's ad revenue from google.com and the ads it places there. It makes its money from ad-words and the google-ads that people place on their own sites. Which, once again, is mostly based on impressions.

But yes, the game changes once the company is public. Right now--the profit motive is personal--they can expand as much as they want to make $$. But once there are shareholders, then the profit motive changes.

[hexydes]

Originally Posted by AdmiralAkbar

And here is where people will get stuck up: Google makes massive loads of cash with ad revenue, so why won't Facebook have a similar patern of success? This won't happen because Google is a "portal" (the whole point of going there is to find a path to somewhere else), while Facebook is an "end-point" (you usually don't go to Facebook looking for another site). As far as hosting goes, the cost of a few users is practically zero. But when you are in the business of volume (as you need to be to get profit from ads alone) this number can climb quickly.

This is the bottom line, and why it is just that "reporters" in the tech industry are saying Facebook will supplant Google. Google will make money because they have two ways of generating it from ads, both of them sustainable for the long-haul:

1. When users actively search out information (via Google's search technology), they also receive RELEVANT ads to what they were ACTIVELY looking for. It is basically additional search results. Compare this to Facebook, who has no way of knowing what you are interested in, other than either by the group you belong to (barely accurate), or by data mining (good luck putting a friendly spin on that one, as we've seen from this thread).

2. Google delivers 3rd-party ads to the end-result sites. Someone puts Google's code into their page, Google delivers the ad. Google's revenue doesn't depend on that one site being successful, because if it isn't, 100 others will pop up and take its place. Facebook on the other hand is one site. If ad revenue doesn't work out on their site, they're screwed. They have no other way of making money.

It's extremely obvious what Facebook is trying to do, and that is drum up as much hype as possible to try and overvalue themselves and make a huge cashgrab before completely selling the farm. I can't fault them, it's smart, and will probably work to some extent. I just can't believe there are still companies stupid enough to buy into this (especially with the .com bubble so fresh in everyone's mind).