

News Archive
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
Facebook Board Member’s Account Hacked
May 10, 2010, 7:31 am
Some may feel that this is “just desserts” or that this is only the beginning but the weekend hack of a Facebook board member’s account may prove a point whether that was intended or not.
The apparent account breach was reported by peHUB, which is a Thomson Reuters property that (according to the site) is an interactive forum for the private equity community, which includes venture capitalists, buyouts professionals, attorneys, bankers, entrepreneurs, MBA candidates studying PE, and assorted hangers-on. Its mission is simple: To help you do your job better, by feeding your head with news and views from/about your peers.
Considering the intended audience it is certainly of interest when Facebook board member Jim Breyer’s account was breached.
Sunday morning, some of the 2,301 Facebook friends of venture capitalist and Facebook board member Jim Breyer received a message from him, through Facebook. “Would You Like a Facebook Phone Number?” it asked, presenting a link to “see more details and RSVP.”
While no one would be surprised by a service that allowed users to call friends from their Facebook accounts, the message was a hack. “This was a phishing scam and Jim’s account appears to have been compromised,” says Larry Yu, a Facebook spokesman, late yesterday. “The issue has since been resolved and we’re actively trying to block this activity.”
You have to wonder if Facebook’s apparent disregard for anything that was once private is going to have any significant repercussions that could take the form of more attacks like this one but on a more widespread basis. Once a company puts itself at odds with the people who use it and has a less than concerned attitude about it (maybe Facebook should be looking at Microsoft’s history of being a target because of their approach to their buying public?) things could get ugly pretty fast.
Will this event matter? Who knows. The report ended with this thought though from a big influencer regarding the whole Facebook and privacy tug-of-war.
Last week, I talked with social media analyst Jeremiah Owyang of Altimeter Group about Facebook’s policy to have users opt out, rather than in. “There are always consumer watchdog groups that will complain, along with very vocal developers,” said Owyang. “But the vast majority of consumers don’t know and don’t care [about privacy issues] until it impacts their personal lives.”
I think the point that the vast majority of consumers don’t know about privacy issues is correct but the assumption that they don’t care (until it impacts their personal life) is not so much. Why? If the only way they are ever really informed of these issues is in a time of crisis (like a breached account) they wonder why they weren’t truly informed all along. While ignorance of a law is not a defense, ignorance of Facebook’s convoluted and constantly changing “privacy” policies is actually the norm and less people are accepting of this tactic.
What if Facebook just had a permanent tab or ‘warning label’ on every page that encouraged everyone to update their privacy settings and gave constant updates rather than burying them deep in the bowels of the service? All of these ‘issues’ would be moot points because the users would have no excuses. Of course, then Facebook would be cutting off its nose to spite its face regarding revenue.
Hmmmm, let’s see. Privacy over here, revenue over. Oooops! Looks like revenue wins again!






