After publishing an invitation to Facebook to join the DataPortability Working Group January 4, we never thought that Facebook would accept it. Today changes everything you’ve ever thought about social-networking data and lock-in before, because today Facebook, Google and Plaxo have joined the DataPortability Workgroup.
Google and Plaxo joining are a positive, however given that both have previously joined together for platforms such as OpenSocial it’s not that significant, but Facebook is another matter. On January 4 Michael sort of defended Facebook’s stance against Plaxo pulling data from Facebook on the grounds that “Facebook also has a very good reason for protecting email addresses - user privacy.” Today, by joining the DataPortability Working Group Facebook is embracing open standards and open access, and that is a huge fundamental change from its previous stance on being locked in to closed standards.
I spoke with the head of the DataPortability Group Chris Saad prior to this post (Chris is also the CEO of Faraday Media.) After about 24 hours of correspondence, the following are to join the working group as official representatives of their respective companies: Joseph Smarr (Plaxo), Brad Fitzpatrick (Google) and Benjamin Ling (Facebook).
The DataPortability Workgroup is actively working to create the ‘DataPortability Reference Design’ to document the best practices for integrating existing open standards and protocols for maximum interoperability (and here’s the key area) to allow users to access their friends and media across all the applications, social networking sites and widgets that implement the design into their systems.
There has been no shortage of people who have knocked Facebook for their closed standards prior to today, perhaps many of whom had a legitimate point. Today Facebook has taken the first step towards open standards and data portability, and despite those previous gripes they should be congratulated for it.
So what would it do to individual users’ privacy control if everybody joined this? One thing I like about Facebook is that it gives me (some) control over what is done with my information. Why would I want to turn my information over to some big new network over which I don’t have control? In other words, the silo can be good for individual users.
In order to provide privacy, you’d probably have to give people access to this network. But then I’d be interacting with that network rather than Facebook. So Facebook’s competitive advantage would suddenly be gone.
Facebook is not as secure as you think. It’s no good having your account set to ‘private’ if you have the ‘view friends’ option visible. It’s simply a matter of trawling ‘friends’ profiles who’s account arn’t private. Anything you do or say (with your non private friends), tagged photos etc is visible to everyone, and not necessarily people who are genuine friends either. Just log in under a false name and join whatever network you wish to trawl.
I don’t mean to sound like a creepy stalker, but it’s the reality of human nature. A lot of young people I’m sure are totaly oblivious to the privacy implications these social networks can have. But I guess we do live in the age of Big Brother, fame and celebrity. I suppose a lot of the younger generation don’t mind and actually want to be seen by others. Trouble is, when they get a little older they will think like an older person. But then it is too late.
Nokia N95 8GB for sale at 180usd
Do kindly reply back if you are interested in buying
from us.Email us at: v11ltd2@mail.md
That is a nice feature. I hope the price is low!