That part happens, then when tagged with a name and or other data that is stored as well. So if a non user then signs up they are informed of the photos they are tagged in.
1 Like
It’s unclear though if Facebook attempts to create an identity for the unknown person, or if it just ignores unrecognised faces until a new user uploads a photo of themselves. All of this should be laid out in Facebook’s privacy policies but it’s simply not there
3 Likes
From my understanding and from FB themselves they admit to non user tracking. They create a unique ID (fingerprinting) regardless if a user or non user and this ID is used as part of the FB tracking system. This is why there are extensions made that block the FB data gathering such as Facebook Container & Disconnect for Facebook
3 Likes
Every website that has a Facebook ‘like’ button reports back to Facebook on both users and non-users. This is one of many good reasons to employ an ad-blocker.
2 Likes
Even without a Like button, many websites have facebook cookies attached. Even the venerable ABC. Its disappointing. Basically, any website which has a facebook presence will have fb cookies.
2 Likes
Regulate Facebook?
Move along folks. Nothing to see here.
baby steps …
A US judge has ordered Facebook to face most of a nationwide lawsuit seeking damages for letting third parties such as Cambridge Analytica access users’ private data, calling the social media company’s views on privacy “so wrong.”
3 Likes
Another article regarding concerns about Facebook, this time by the former head of theirAustralian & New Zealand office.
3 Likes
I admit to not having followed this thread, having zero interest in FB (I use FB container to stop their ubiquitous collection of my info) and avoiding using google whenever I can, but this article may be of interest to some:
4 Likes
An op-ed that has many interesting thoughts about why Zuck refuses to reign in false political advertising.
4 Likes
The Zuckerbergs of the world want to maintain the right to have algorithmic promotion of hate, lies and scandal at the expense of boring sober facts. This the latest way of exploiting human weakness and mob misbehaviour for money and power. The unscrupulous have done it for millennia but now it can be automated.
The owners of huge and powerful media companies are complaining that governments must not regulate them because any elected government telling billions of people what they can see and read is contrary free speech, regardless of motive. But the same companies, who are not accountable at the ballot box, say it is perfectly OK to do exactly that in pursuit of profit.
The scope of what can reasonably be published has always been hotly contested. Most societies accept that some censorship of the most vile and destructive material is acceptable. But even the most rabid advocates of freedom of speech, who want no censorship at all, are at least logically consistent - they don’t want any controls at all by anybody at any time. But the Zuckerbergs don’t want that, they want their software to maintain control. For dollar.
4 Likes
1 Like
2 Likes
From The Conversation article you linked:
To its credit, the government made a commitment of A$26.9 million over four years to fund a new unit in the ACCC.
Seriously, $27m over four years, or less than $7m/year? That’s not a lot - and will probably be offset elsewhere.
The objective is to have a “platform-neutral” regulatory framework covering both online and offline delivery of media content (for example, having common rules for Netflix and free-to-air television).
Wow - just wow! Of course online and offline delivery are absolutely the same and there is no reason to regulate one differently to the other. /s
To summarise, it looks like ‘nothing to see here, business as usual folks’.
4 Likes
I sort of disagree.
If looks more like our politicians in government saying they know better than 18 months of work and input from industry experts and the ACCC.
If that be so, why did our leading politicians even bother. Given their superior knowledge we could have saved the cash and skipped 18 months of delays on those items they already agree on.
No cynicism intended. Just disappointment.
As a small player, Australia in a large international playground, the easy solution would seem to partner up to a larger friend and simply follow swiftly in their footsteps. The EU seems to have a keen interest in ensuring large OS corporations don’t get to make the rules on the EU turf. The USA seems to have the opposite view point, so long as it is a US company acting in it’s best interests OS.
6 Likes
I agree - we should simply adopt the European GDPR.
Actually, I hear there’s a place opening up in the EU, with some small country having decided to leave it - maybe that kind of position would be of some assistance to Australia - or at least to Australians.
5 Likes
Well, they let us into Eurovision. The next step can’t be that hard, can it?
Sort of a European led version of China’s belt and road strategy, without the need for re-education camps? 
5 Likes
Only if the adoption by the EU doesn’t increase the seeming “White Australia” policy that seems to be held in esteem by some within our Country.
4 Likes
This is a long read but an important one. A tech journalist tried to live without Facebook, Google, Amazon, Apple or Microsoft. Here’s what happened.
This highlights exactly why these companies should be regulated as utilities, not products.
1 Like
