Facebook's stealth attack on Google exposes its own privacy problem

By Steven Levy, WIRED
May 13, 2011 7:49 a.m. EDT | Filed under: Web
When Facebook was attempting to expose Google's privacy problem, they accidently outed themselves, too.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
A big corporate PR firm, Burson-Marsteller, tried to entice USA Today to lambaste Google
It also encouraged a security blogger to write an op-ed attacking Google
The client wasn't rivals AT&T or Microsoft, it was Facebook
RELATED TOPICS
Facebook Inc.
Google Inc.
Internet Privacy
(WIRED) -- OK, here's the deal. A big corporate PR firm, Burson-Marsteller, tried to entice USA Today to lambaste a Google feature called Social Circle, on privacy grounds. It also encouraged a security blogger to write an op-ed attacking Google on the product.
Burson would not say the name of its client. But instead of taking the bait, USA Today did due diligence and consulted experts who said that Social Circle was small potatoes compared to more pressing privacy stories.
Instead it published a story about the Burston "whisper campaign" against Google on behalf of a secret client.
Meanwhile the blogger released a damning transcript of his exchange with the sleazy folks from Burson.
Most people would have assumed that the client was Microsoft or AT&T, Google rivals already actively involved in seizing every possible opportunity to take its foe down a notch. But last night we learned that the cowardly accuser was Facebook. Thus exposed, Facebook has 'fessed up.
This is a stunning story for a number of reasons.
But here's what makes the least sense -- if there were privacy problems about Facebook information in Google Social Circle (which has now been transformed into a different product called Social Search), they may well have been a result of Facebook's own practices.
Facebook was griping that Google is getting information about its users without permission. But some information that users share with Facebook is available publicly, even to people who aren't their friends in in their social networks -- or even are members of Facebook.
It's not because outsiders raided the service and exposed that information. It's because Facebook chose to expose it.
Facebook used to have an implicit promise with its users. Basically the deal was what goes on Facebook stays on Facebook. But over the past couple of years Facebook has chosen to alter the deal.
Certain profile information became available outside of Facebook, easily searchable via Google and other means. (Users can opt out of showing this but relatively few do.) Some of that profile information includes a few of the people on the user's friend list. By repeatedly pinging public profiles, it's possible for Google or anyone else to figure out pretty much all your friends.
This information is a lot easier to unearth from inside Facebook, but actually logging into Facebook to purloin information would indeed be troublesome. For one thing, it would violate the terms of service agreement.
Is Google doing this? One of the Burson operatives implied that it is. But Google says the company does not go inside Facebook to scrape information, and I find this credible. (If Facebook has logs to prove this serious charge, let's see them.)
When Google launched Social Search, it also said specifically that it was not going to learn about Facebook connections by mining the Web as described above. Just how Google does get Facebook information is complicated, but as Danny Sullivan of Search Engine Land concluded after an extensive look, much of it seems to be by permission.
Things should be more clear when Google prepares a more detailed briefing on this, which I assume it is preparing at this moment. Or maybe Facebook will directly spell out its charges now that it's been outed.
But even if Google did scrape information from the public web, would that be so bad? You can argue whether or not Google would be crossing a privacy line by doing this. (And, remember, Google says it is not mining that public information.) But it's an argument with a pro and con. What you cannot argue is that is not Google but Facebook that puts some Facebook information into the open Web.
That is why Facebook's campaign is so weird. If outsiders are going to examine how third-party companies get information about Facebook's users, you can't help but question why some Facebook information, by default, shows up on the open web.
Also, consider this excerpt from the letter Burson's operative named John Mercurio wrote to gin up an attack without Facebook's fingerprints on it. "Google's latest plan," he wrote, "totally disregards the intimate and potentially damaging details that could be revealed, including sexual orientation, political affiliation, personal connections, etc..."
This is ironic since, in my experience, Facebook user profiles with such information are much easier to view that they were in the early days of the service. Unless people actively take steps to opt out, it's possible for "friends of friends" (i.e., strangers) to view someone's personal information on Facebook.
And it was also remarkable that the Burson operative wailed about the privacy implications of letting millions of people examine a Facebook user's friend list. In my experience the vast majority of Facebook users do not take the steps to hide their connections, a list which is open by default to half a billion Facebook users.
Any responsible journalistic (or congressional) examination of the Burson charges would wind up asking questions about these Facebook privacy issues.
Given this, I conclude that Facebook was running a smear campaign against itself.
Over the next couple of years, the privacy practices of many companies -- especially Google and Facebook -- will come under severe scrutiny. Essentially it is neither company that is the cause of our privacy dilemma. It is the internet itself. The internet makes a broadcast of what once was a whisper.
The internet raises to the top of our attention embarrassing items that once would have faded into obscurity. The internet allows strangers and the ill-intentioned to aggregate innocuous personal data into a devastatingly revealing dossier.
The internet also allows companies to monetize our private information without our full knowledge. (Burying snoop tactics in the dense text of a privacy policy is not a justification.) And that gives profit-making firms a powerful incentive to abuse our privacy.
These companies want our trust. They even want us to hold off strong legislation and allow them to self regulate. And now here comes Facebook, doing one of the dumbest things imaginable.
It tried to beam attention on a privacy problem of a rival, but exposed itself as a sneaky maligner. Furthermore, the sorts of privacy fears Facebook evokes are exactly the sort that makes people worried about Facebook.
Not the greatest way to win our trust.
Subscribe to WIRED magazine for less than $1 an issue and get a FREE GIFT! Click here!
Copyright 2010 Wired.com.


FOLLOW THIS TOPIC
We recommend

The best password is a sentence, says expert
Why Xbox Kinect could be -- but won't be -- the future of TV
80 killed in Pakistan Taliban claims bin Laden revenge
Skaters train 'illegally' for growing sport
Woman beheaded in supermarket attack described as full of life
Questionnaire may help predict autism at 1 year
From around the web

10 Things Every Guy Should Know About Doing Laundry Man of the House
Worst Social Media Mistakes Every Day Connected
Osama bin Laden bought a lot of soda The Daily
Have you seen the most valuable photograph in the world? The Daily
10 Smartphone Apps to Help You Get Ahead Men's Life Today
Apple 'is Killing the World Wide Web' CIO
[what's this]


Log in or sign up to comment
soundoff (95 Comments)
Show: Newest | Oldest | Most liked

Skwisgaar Facebook isn't bad if all the profiles you have are fake, and you use it only to play games.
6 hours ago | Like (5) | Report abuse

Jamescohen
Facebook is for those who have no life to outside world... It can be a good hobby site. if we are not in contact with someone for many years, it is for the reason that we have moved on, time and space. So if we come across that person again, we may not be able to communicate closely as we did before... more
7 hours ago | Like (1) | Report abuse

Ghostcat
A typical comment from someone who believes in nothing but the stereotypical Facebook user.  I have friends across the entire planet, scattered about, and I've little interest in no longer being interactive with them jsut because I cannot "communicate closely" with them from thousands of miles away.... more
6 hours ago | Like (7) | Report abuse

danteg8son Facebook and Google exist for the purpose of making money by showing users advertising and by selling everything they can learn about users to advertisers.  And their users willingly cooperate in selling themselves out.  No sympathy.
9 hours ago | Like (10) | Report abuse

FillFFill
Well, duh, they are corporations run by executives and owners that are there for one reason: money.  Zuckerberg has said his users are idiots to disclose their information to him.  Google, while claiming to do no evil, are caught in the profit trap of mining people's personal information to get rich... more
7 hours ago | Like | Report abuse

backfromdead We all knew Zuckerberg was a nerd all along... we shouldn't be surprised he has problems with private parts.
10 hours ago | Like (4) | Report abuse

AzWildcat Any questions on how big a slimeball Zuckerberg is?
11 hours ago | Like (4) | Report abuse

chicagogam i dislike the pattern facebook has shown playing fast and loose with us. but...that's where all the people are. it's like a popular bar that's popular because it's...popular. sigh..well, i posted it on facebook but no one really seems to care. sigh
10 hours ago | Like (2) | Report abuse

MisterSnow in chinese there is a joke about facebook, "fei si bu ke"  which means "no choice but to die"
12 hours ago | Like | Report abuse

andruha Everyone on here should read the book "Daemon." If stuff like these security issues interest you, and you want to see a really informed vision of how they will be used in the future , check out the book. (I am not paid to make plugs for it, I just finished reading it).
13 hours ago | Like (1) | Report abuse

gwats1957 I think twice before I post anything on the web, especially Facebook. A promise is only as solid as the organization backing it up. Humans screw up regularly, so the best odds are 86% at best. Watch what you post... the s**t is out there, forever! :)
13 hours ago | Like (1) | Report abuse

Hooagy I dropped out of FB a couple of months ago, when they  hooked up with goldman / sachs . When you start hanging with scum,all the scrubbing bubbles in the world can' get you clean again.
13 hours ago | Like (2) | Report abuse

KatlynM It would help if Facebook didn't change their privacy rules every other week!  Unless you are on daily & keep up with the constant changes they make there is no telling what info of yours is available to who knows. Very different than when FB began, sadly.
15 hours ago | Like (5) | Report abuse

just0breathe
facebook is truly horrifying. im thankful to not be another addict to it's seriously unnecessary involvement in my life. something tells me that in time, facebook will invade the rights of all its users and no one will be safe. call me crazy, but i would rather have my conscious my own and not have ... more
20 hours ago | Like (12) | Report abuse

samboknowz Stupid facebook, it's doing good with Google, why in the world would it look for beef with the greatest search engine in the web!? that only closes doors for them. Either way, they should of actually thought about what they just published before even mentioning it...
23 hours ago | Like (2) | Report abuse

IanA1 You don't have privacy even with the security settings properly enabled. Your information is compiled and shared with Facebook's "partners" (businesses, various organizations, etc., who are interesting in knowing every detail about you, from your political views to various tendencies, etc.).
23 hours ago | Like (2) | Report abuse

DoctorV What a dumb picture. Shouldn't the word be backwards in a reflected image? Or is the person looking at a reflection of his computer screen?
23 hours ago | Like (5) | Report abuse

telveer Facebook would be OK if not for the default unrestricted privacy and security settings. Most users don't have the knowledge, inclination or time to figure out the myriad settings and protect their profile. settings and protect their profile.
1 day ago | Like (1) | Report abuse

bretticus
Getting off Facebook was one of the better of recent decisions I have made.  For middle aged people like myself, I find it unnatural for people who have been out of my life for years to suddenly try to reconnect.  I tried it for 1 and 1/2 years, but it was never a good outcome out of this site.  In ... more
1 day ago | Like (10) | Report abuse

NOVANAtive This isn't a problem if you only friend people you currently know. The issue with how relationships turn out on these sites is user-generated. Now, the default "lack of privacy" settings is wholly Facebook's fault.
1 day ago | Like (1) | Report abuse

RAblackmail Did you get the herp on a few chance encounters from old classmates.
1 day ago | Like (6) | Report abuse

KtinME
What's really worrisome to me is that we are growing a whole generation of people who know no boundaries.  Nothing is offlimits to them - they'll post anything on their minds and anything they think is on someone else's mind.  There are no take-backs or do-overs here.  People are getting hurt by thi... more
1 day ago | Like (7) | Report abuse

Guest Whatever... how many people have you slept with?  Any gay lovers?  How much money do you make?  Who do you love more, your Mom or your Dad?  What's your social-security number?  C'mon, tell me, I wanna know!
22 hours ago | Like | Report abuse

WilmaDichfit How long before Google is constructively nationalized via classified National Security Directives?
How long before Facebook follows?
How many will even know?
1 day ago | Like | Report abuse

Cortanis
LMFAO! I can only say, "NAAAAW! Ya THINK?!" to this. With facebook, and frankly other social networks, constantly changeing their privacy policies and controles to make them deliberatly excessivly hard or impossible to change to a secure setting, it's impossible to have any faith in them. After all,... more
1 day ago | Like (1) | Report abuse
Load next 25 | View all comments


[TECH: NEWSPULSE]
Most popular Tech stories right now
Will Wii 2 rock the gaming world?
Facebook's stealth attack on Google
Sony to start restoring PlayStation services
Phone makers entrusted with 'kill switch'
'Halo' and its creators move on after divorce
Explore the news with NewsPulse »