dslreports logo
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search Topic:
uniqs
25
share rss forum feed


Blackbird
Built for Speed
Premium
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..

1 recommendation

reply to KoRnGtL15

Re: Facebook now wants your personal phone number....

OK... I've managed to stay out of this thread until now, since I'm not a Facebook user (and have no intention of becoming one) - so I don't really have a pony in the race. But I'm trying to understand a point of view that keeps emerging in this and most of the past FB-related threads... namely that it's somehow "wrong" for FB to demand a phone number or some other personally-identifying information to open/maintain a FB account.

If I were to purchase a service or product somewhere on the Internet (either with or without a EULA indicating some of my personal data would be shared), would I not expect to have to unmistakeably identify myself and/or provide information if I elected to proceed? Suppose the purchase price was zero (as in the case of most of the software give-away offers that pop up by 'name' companies from time to time)... would I not still have to go through an information-submittal process as well? (Hint: the answer is "yes", because that's how those offers do work.)

Now, Facebook is providing a no-charge "social network" service (paying for it with user information and/or ads served to the user). Sometimes that service gets abused by unpleasant folks, and problems then arise in other people's lives. Why is there an expectation that users are entitled to the no-charge service without providing any information or identification? And, more significantly, why is FB "wrong" in demanding account-applicant identification, in whatever sense of the word "wrong"? Once again, I'm not trying to launch an argument... I'm merely trying to get a handle on the reasoning behind such opinions I see so often expressed.
--
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!" -- P.Henry, 1775


ashrc4
Premium
join:2009-02-06
australia
said by Blackbird:

If I were to purchase a service or product somewhere on the Internet (either with or without a EULA indicating some of my personal data would be shared), would I not expect to have to unmistakeably identify myself and/or provide information if I elected to proceed?.......

.....why is FB "wrong" in demanding account-applicant identification,....

Facebook has broken promises in regards to how it would handle users data in the past.
For this reason i don't think demanding a new avenue to screw with, such as your phone no. is fair. A copy of your license with some identity points omitted is reasonable.
Of course you can always give them as much info as you as you like/trust them with.
--
Paradigm Shift beta test pilot. "Now is the not right time to stop folding."


Freebird

@comcast.net
reply to Blackbird
Do you trust people that you have never met or ever laid eyes on before, with your personal private information, such as SS# or credit card number? I think that a private phone number falls into the same category. That's why it's called, "private." Also, FYI, One thing that FB neglects to tell people before entering their phone number is, when a phone number is used for FB identity, it is posted for public access on their account, until the owner of the FB account goes into their security settings and chooses the option to make it private.

dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:8
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

2 recommendations

said by Freebird :

Do you trust people that you have never met or ever laid eyes on before, with your personal private information, such as SS# or credit card number?

Actually, yes. Just the other day I typed my credit card number into an airline web site. In fact, more often than the converse, I give my credit card number to someone unknown that I've never met. In most of the other cases, I give it to someone I'll never meet again. That sort of thing seems to be intrinsic to having a credit card to use.

Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
kudos:6
reply to Blackbird
said by Blackbird:

Suppose the purchase price was zero (as in the case of most of the software give-away offers that pop up by 'name' companies from time to time)... would I not still have to go through an information-submittal process as well? (Hint: the answer is "yes", because that's how those offers do work.)

Now, Facebook is providing a no-charge "social network" service (paying for it with user information and/or ads served to the user). Why is there an expectation that users are entitled to the no-charge service without providing any information or identification? And, more significantly, why is FB "wrong" in demanding account-applicant identification, in whatever sense of the word "wrong"?

I can't speak for current joiners of the web. But for those of us who joined when I did (98) or earlier, I think most of us didn't know what hit us when the web changed from Web1 to Web2. I think some still don't know. I can't fathom why Facebook needs my real identity and besides needing it feels compelled to post it for everyone to see. Why can't I just be "Mele20" or "DottieArtiist3", etc. at Facebook? Why on earth would I be forced to give my real name, a real photo of myself and/or a private, unlisted phone number? That is utterly absurd to me as a person who "came of web age" during Web1.

As for purchasing software that may be free during a special offer, why wouldn't you lie? I would lie without a second thought in regards to my real name, real address, phone number, email address (for the latter I would give a short time lived self destruct alias address or a throw away one that would trace me to another nation). Before purchasing software (assuming there was no free offer), I would trial it and I would not give my real name and address for a trial! If I decided at the end of the trial to purchase it, THEN AND ONLY THEN would I need to give my credit card information. And I would not give it unless the vendor had assured me that it would be kept confidential and I trusted that vendor.

What I can't understand is why anyone (even those coming of web age during Web2) would feel they need to put their full name, address, phone number, personal real photo of themselves, on a social website in order to use that website to communicate with friends and family. You would just lie if the site demanded stupid things like your real name and your unlisted phone number. You would keep your page closed to all except your friends and family and they would have to agree to address you either by your handle or first name only and not publish any information that could be used to trace to the real you. But your friends and family would know who your handle represented. This could be extended, if you decided, to anyone on that social network. This is how it was during Web1 days. What happened so suddenly to make many embrace Web2 and enthusiastically give up very fast all privacy that they had on Web1 and that was expected on it? People's minds got corrupted really fast. I keep wondering what Koolaid did so many people drink and how were they induced so rapidly to drink it?

There are still many like myself though. Avira reversed their earlier mandate at their forum that was discussed in this forum on more than one occasion. Avira made it impossible, about 2 years back, for any member to change anything in their profile until they gave their real full name and other identifying information. This mandate included all those using Avira FREE version. Those of us who registered there many years ago were told that if we did not supply our full real names, addresses, etc that we would not only not be able to make changes in our profiles but would be in gross violation of the TOS and subject to ejection from the forum (even though some of us had thousands of posts there and had demonstrated good faith). We were also told that we could not lie about our date of birth. So, for close to two years, I could not change my profile and it got really outdated. We had threads protesting this in the Avira forum and here. Recently, Avira shut down the forum for most of a day to upgrade the software. The new forum no longer makes any mention of a full real name requirement. I still list only a first name handle there yet now I can make all changes to my profile. User's who protest Web2's utter disregard for the user's privacy and anonymity sometimes win still.
--
When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. Thomas Jefferson


Cheese
Premium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
kudos:1

1 edit
said by Mele20:

said by Blackbird:

Suppose the purchase price was zero (as in the case of most of the software give-away offers that pop up by 'name' companies from time to time)... would I not still have to go through an information-submittal process as well? (Hint: the answer is "yes", because that's how those offers do work.)

Now, Facebook is providing a no-charge "social network" service (paying for it with user information and/or ads served to the user). Why is there an expectation that users are entitled to the no-charge service without providing any information or identification? And, more significantly, why is FB "wrong" in demanding account-applicant identification, in whatever sense of the word "wrong"?

As for purchasing software that may be free during a special offer, why wouldn't you lie? I would lie without a second thought in regards to my real name, real address, phone number, email address (for the latter I would give a short time lived self destruct alias address or a throw away one that would trace me to another nation).

Because most people aren't like you and don't feel the need to lie to try to "hide"....most people aren't PARANOID like you. The fact that you advocate lying, is pretty sickening.


AVD
Respice, Adspice, Prospice
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ
kudos:1
there are such things as white lies.


AVD
Respice, Adspice, Prospice
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ
kudos:1
reply to Mele20
said by Mele20:

I can't speak for current joiners of the web. But for those of us who joined when I did (98) or earlier, I think most of us didn't know what hit us when the web changed from Web1 to Web2. I think some still don't know. I can't fathom why Facebook needs my real identity and besides needing it feels compelled to post it for everyone to see. Why can't I just be "Mele20" or "DottieArtiist3", etc. at Facebook? Why on earth would I be forced to give my real name, a real photo of myself and/or a private, unlisted phone number? That is utterly absurd to me as a person who "came of web age" during Web1. ...

What I can't understand is why anyone (even those coming of web age during Web2) would feel they need to put their full name, address, phone number, personal real photo of themselves, on a social website in order to use that website to communicate with friends and family. You would just lie if the site demanded stupid things like your real name and your unlisted phone number. You would keep your page closed to all except your friends and family and they would have to agree to address you either by your handle or first name only and not publish any information that could be used to trace to the real you. But your friends and family would know who your handle represented. This could be extended, if you decided, to anyone on that social network. This is how it was during Web1 days. What happened so suddenly to make many embrace Web2 and enthusiastically give up very fast all privacy that they had on Web1 and that was expected on it? People's minds got corrupted really fast. I keep wondering what Koolaid did so many people drink and how were they induced so rapidly to drink it?

quote:
Talking in San Francisco over the weekend at the Crunchie Awards, which recognise technological achievements, the 25 year-old web entrepreneur said: “People have really gotten comfortable not only sharing more information and different kinds, but more openly and with more people.”

He went on to say that privacy was no longer a ‘social norm’ and had just evolved over time.

"When I got started in my dorm room at Harvard, the question a lot of people asked was, 'why would I want to put any information on the internet at all? Why would I want to have a website?'."

"Then in the last 5 or 6 years, blogging has taken off in a huge way, and just all these different services that have people sharing all this information,” he explained.
attribution: »www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/f ··· orm.html
--
--Standard disclaimers apply.--

I wake up happy and smiling
Knowing that Mother Nature is my friend


91862239
Premium
join:2011-10-15
Brownsville, TX
reply to Cheese
lying is necessary to avoid being targeted by pedos weirdos online preds and bill collectors you always have to be carful i lie all the time about everything to everyone except to the people that i know i can trust people that wont rat me out to bill collectors
Expand your moderator at work

17775992

join:2011-11-16
Chicago, IL

1 recommendation

reply to 91862239

Re: Facebook now wants your personal phone number....

said by 91862239:

lying is necessary to avoid being targeted by pedos weirdos online preds and bill collectors you always have to be carful i lie all the time about everything to everyone except to the people that i know i can trust people that wont rat me out to bill collectors

I guess that means you didn't know DSLR is on the search list of Big Brother and bill collectors.


Doctor Olds
I Need A Remedy For What's Ailing Me.
Premium,VIP
join:2001-04-19
1970 442 W30
kudos:18

2 recommendations

reply to 91862239
said by 91862239:

lying is necessary to avoid being targeted by pedos weirdos online preds and bill collectors you always have to be carful i lie all the time about everything to everyone except to the people that i know i can trust people that wont rat me out to bill collectors

Funny thing, but when you pay your bills (as you promised/agreed to when making a purchase using Credit) and don't spend more than you make then bill collectors don't know who the hell that you are and therefore never call you. Imagine that. In over 45 Years, I've NEVER had a bill collector call me much less have a file with my name on it.
--
What’s the point of owning a supercar if you can’t scare yourself stupid from time to time?

dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:8
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
reply to 91862239
said by 91862239:

lying is necessary to avoid being targeted by pedos weirdos online preds and bill collectors you always have to be carful i lie all the time about everything to everyone except to the people that i know i can trust people that wont rat me out to bill collectors

Strange that you rate 'bill collectors' pretty much the same as 'pedos'. I'm sort of curious as to how many times you've failed to pay your bills, such that fear of bill collectors starts to become important to you.


goalieskates
Premium
join:2004-09-12
land of big

1 recommendation

reply to Doctor Olds
said by Doctor Olds:

Funny thing, but when you pay your bills (as you promised/agreed to when making a purchase using Credit) and don't spend more than you make then bill collectors don't know who the hell that you are and therefore never call you.

Don't count on that.

I've been called for bills belonging to people with my name (but a different state.) Heck, my spouse was served papers by a lawyer for an incident in Las Vegas, and he's never been to Las Vegas.

Point being, databases are often corrupt, and bill collectors (among others) really don't care. They'll beat you to death, and when you try to establish that you're not the "John Smith" they're looking for, they act like you're just a deadbeat avoiding having to pay.

And that's leaving out the whole secondary issue of stolen identity.


Doctor Olds
I Need A Remedy For What's Ailing Me.
Premium,VIP
join:2001-04-19
1970 442 W30
kudos:18
said by goalieskates:

said by Doctor Olds:

Funny thing, but when you pay your bills (as you promised/agreed to when making a purchase using Credit) and don't spend more than you make then bill collectors don't know who the hell that you are and therefore never call you.

Don't count on that.

I've been called for bills belonging to people with my name (but a different state.) Heck, my spouse was served papers by a lawyer for an incident in Las Vegas, and he's never been to Las Vegas.

I can see that happening with common names. It pays not to be a John or Jane Smith. I don't have a very common name.

said by goalieskates:

Point being, databases are often corrupt, and bill collectors (among others) really don't care. They'll beat you to death, and when you try to establish that you're not the "John Smith" they're looking for, they act like you're just a deadbeat avoiding having to pay.

Not if you know your rights under the FDCPA. In fact you can get bank from the collectors that don't care to follow the rules and they really do care after you hit them in their wallets. I've done that several times.

»www.frbsf.org/publications/consu ··· ml#fdcpa
quote:
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act promotes the fair treatment of consumers by prohibiting debt collectors from using unfair, deceptive, or abusive practices.

This act applies to professional debt collectors who collect on loans they did not originate. Though it technically does not apply to banks, department stores, and other lenders who collect their own debts, no reputable lender is permitted to use such practices.

* Debt collectors are permitted to contact people other than the debtor only to locate the debtor or make a reasonable effort to communicate with the debtor about the debt.

* After making contact, debt collectors are required to send written notice informing the debtor of the amount of the debt, the name of the creditor, and the fact that the debt will be considered valid unless disputed within 30 days.

* Debt collectors are prohibited from harassing, oppressing, or being abusive in collecting a debt. This includes using threats or obscene language, publicizing the debt, making annoying or anonymous telephone calls, and misrepresenting the identity of the collector, the status of the debt, and the consequences if it is not paid.

If debt collectors violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, consumers can sue for actual and punitive damages.
said by goalieskates:

And that's leaving out the whole secondary issue of stolen identity.

That's a good thing due to being even further off topic to the subject as the party I was replying to.
--
What’s the point of owning a supercar if you can’t scare yourself stupid from time to time?