I deleted my FB account. A lot of what they do is creepy.

What's most disturbing to me is how a relatively small number of facebook users will see or hear about an article like this. If you care about this article enough to even briefly skim through it you're already in the minority. You're probably the kind of person who can pick out the fake news, make rational purchasing decisions regardless of targeted ads, and you probably don't use or are not an active user of social media in general. Unfortunately, those active social media users are probably the most likely to be effected by these sorts of patents and are unlikely to see or care about news like this. There is an enormous fraction of the population that facebook holds tremendous power over, it's time for the government to put some regulation on how facebook can manipulate the public.

These are all possible because the FCC failed to declare the internet a public utility subject to various laws and rules concerning freedom of association and ultimately honoring personal privacy (as our old telephone system used to). Instead, we have a watering down of Civil Liberties, ending our democracy. I guess the almighty dollar is much more important than freedom and dignity after all.

Simple solution: use Facebook only for things like commenting on the cuteness of your grandchildren, and congratulating your kid on a promotion. Anything else (personal matters, health, business) call the person/persons.

Clearly FB, from the beginning, was designed to act as 'a fifth column' in everyone's personal life and in the personal lives of everyone who regularly interacts with an FB user. FB is like the friend you made who turned out to be a creep, but by the time you figured that out he or she was a creep it was too late: the creepy friend had already become the favorite of your parents and of virtually everyone else you ever cared for; a thing which makes dropping him or her a very big deal, if not practically impossible.

Now do an article on Palantir.

What is in any way surprising about this? Data begets information, information begets knowledge, knowledge IS power. And if this knowledge refers to the subconscious mechanisms that underlie an individual's construct of reality, it is all the more valuable. Stalin chose to be general secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, a choice most of his ambitious colleagues found puzzling, when he had his pick of government departments. Yet he alone understood that by being able to manage the flow of information, by knowing who talked to whom and about what, he was the spider at the center of the web. And he would know which fly landed where, so he could do with it what he wanted. Yet again, the surprise is the surprise.

The owners of social media platforms like Fakebook are undermining our shared values and replacing them with tribalism, while also allying themselves with our country's enemy's (e.g, Russia), because social media is addictive and, therefore, it makes the tech geniuses, who fell NO ALLEGIANCE to anything but money, are lot of money. The same goes for Apple's decision to ally itself with the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party: Addiction is profitable and it makes the user stupider and lazier and, therefore, easier to manipulate.

What if I add to my profile - "Don't bother. I block all ads & trackers, and I don't watch TV."

FB got caught with their pants down, and are now running a new round of tv ads, claiming that they were found out, they apologize, and now they're reforming to make their work transparent and to respect our privacy. Ooops. Just as they announced their new dating/matching services, which will use all that privately connected data plus more to monetize another set of relationships. And as articles like this NYT one keep appearing, unmasking yet another facet of their duplicity. How many pairs of pants are they wearing, as they keep getting caught? Where is their acknowledgement that in fact Zuckerberg and his empire have no clothes?

We have opened Pandora's box...

Creepy? Without a doubt. But also creepy is the Times bottom-of-the-screen-full-width banner urging me to turn off my ad blocker. Nope. Ain't gonna do it. That Facebook has "privacy" settings and a "privacy" policy are hilarious when you think about it, not to mention being bald-faced lies. Private from who? The number of Facebook employees with the program privileges to be virtual voyeurs, in spite of these settings and policies, of every one of Facebook's fools...excuse me, subscribers/customers/marks...that's what's r-e-a-l-l-l-y creepy. This company makes the sicko with video cameras attached to the toes of his shoes so he can get his jollies while standing in line harmless by comparison.

Who thinks up this stuff?

Don't install the FB app on your phone. Pictures, you can email them to your computer and then post them. Turn off your cam when FB is running on your desktop. FB will still get information from your computer, but breaking the phone-FB connection gives your privacy some protection. Otherwise, don't put anything up on FB that you don't want the whole world to know. Real privacy is history but at least you can make "them" invest some time, money and energy in violating it.

This article misses the central, and far more troubling, concern about these Facebook patent applications: That the existing technology has the capacity to be used in these ways. Facebook is merely seeking a patent to commercialize for business purposes the uses of this technology; they are not developing new underlying technology. For example, use of your phone's microphone depends on the existing underlying technology of your phone's microphone and its ability to pick up sounds. Whether Facebook, or anyone else, gets a patent for the exclusive commercial use of this technology, the technology can already be used nonetheless for all sorts purposes—commercial, surveillance, or other. If they can be used, that suggests they are already being used. Facebook’s patent applications just bring these uses to broader public attention.

The things that Facebook does are very similar to the attributes that a computer virus has. People pay good money and expend a lot of effort to block a virus, yet they are willing to engage and use Facebook which ultimately is doing almost the same thing. It really is both ingenious (by Facebook) and ironic that this is going on.

And how many Facebook tentacles are embedded in the typical NY Times web page? At least a few, according to a cursory glance at my various script and tracker blockers.

Unplug, folks, before all our cyberwidgets (and FB pstents) force us down the drain in America...

The quality of this article is not representative of the quality of journalism that I expect from the New York Times. The content is superficial and the title reads like BuzzFeed click bait. Are the revelations you present really that shocking, given the type of data Facebook has and the number of engineers they employ? If you're going to write about "creepy" tech patents in the industry stop beating the dead Facebook horse and have a real discussion about the pros and cons of the technologies emerging from all Silicon Valley companies, not just the most popular scapegoat.

If you believe Facebook's denials I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. Facebook can mea culpa all they like but its just smoke & mirrors. These patents show the direction that Facebook intends to go in. Like other issues with privacy they will beat their chests in contrition when caught and monetize your privacy and data until then. Believing a sociopath like Zuckerberg is misguided at best and the idea that Facebook will ever give up the money teat that is your personal data is delusional. They get better at misdirection and sophistry every time their caught and the denials in this piece show how well they do it.

I quit Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn last December. The amount of FOMO and envy in my life has dropped measurably and for that I am very grateful. I imagine they are still tracking me somehow, but maybe not as easily.

The issue isn't whether Facebook is an evil company, but rather whether Facebook is unleashing technology with the potential to do great harm to our democracy, and to democracy and civil liberties worldwide. Without privacy and the ability to dissent, or consider dissenting privately, and to think through an issue without being labeled a de facto criminal, we cease to live in a free society. It is incumbent on the New York Times, as the paper of record, to devote as much attention to Facebook's overreach and violation of the privacy of Americans, as it devotes to issues like immigration, the Mueller investigation, and any number of outrages committed by the Trump or DiBlasio administrations.

Welcome to the "Internet of Things," where the things you thought you owned actually own you, and where your "privacy" is nothing more than a sham behind which powerful interests exploit you commercially and psychologically until you can't take it anymore, at which point they stand ready to use your own data to destroy you if you try to escape the system or reveal its danger to others.

I have told people for years that FB, Google, Amazon and their ilk know more about you than the NSA ever will. I have never been a Facebook user and never will be. If Facebook wants my data, then they must pay me for it. I don't use any Google product or Amazon either. I understand the utility of these e-commerce and braggart apps but life is pretty good without being constantly harassed by digital spies and consumer rubbish peddlers. It seems that a lot of people spend more time tethered to, loving and hugging their mobile devices than their loved ones. It's such a pity.

We read about him in "1984" but we had a Big Brother long before we knew had him. It will take the next generation before the possibility of getting him out of people’s private lives. Our ignorance and laissez faire attitude has lead to a country that embraces a distorted form of Capitalism and an uneducated understanding of the Constitution

Creepy is right. For the life of me, I cannot see why anyone uses Facebook in light of the revelations that are coming out about how intrusive it is.

To facebook and the other social media entities the only purpose of "users" is to generate salable information. If Mr. Zuckerberg really cared about the privacy of my information he would left users opt out having anydata colected about them sold. Ain't going to happen. Kind of like that scene in the movie Soylent Green where the figure out soylent green is people.

I value my personal privacy. I don't have a cell phone or any smart devices. I don't use Facebook or Google. I do all my searches on Duck Duck Go. I encourage everyone to do the same.

I recently installed the add-on "noscript" to my Firefox browser. Among other things, it allows the user to see (and either approve or disapprove) the exploding number of java script enabled internet tracking sites that monitor and record every breath that you take on line. Visting one major credit card issuing bank's website recently triggered no less than half a dozen stalking partners including both Google and Google's Youtube and other previously unknown domains with creepy names like cyveillance.com, ensighten.com, iesnare.com, etc. Make absolutely no mistake: In the world of modern surveillance capitalism, you are the product not the customer-- even when you deal with a known bricks and mortar entity like your bank. Every reader who cares about her or his privacy should be on guard. Because the problem we face today goes so far beyond Facebook and it is only going to get worse, much worse I expect. Until we are willing to step away from our social media and sacrifice an iota of putative convenience in our online transactions, we will have no chance of beating back the tide.

A patent is used to block a competitor from launching an identical or a competitive product, or perhaps an improved product that shifts competitive advantage to the competitor. In addition to acting as a barrier to competition, patents have another value, in that they may be used a bargaining chips. For example, they can be cross-licensed with a competitor's patent to allow Facebook to launch a product that appears to infringe a competitor's patent without paying a royalty or a license fee. Therefore, these patents issued to Facebook may actually prevent other companies from launching products that adopt such nefarious approaches, provided that Facebook does not license its patents, foregoing the monetary gain from these licenses. The patent applications do tell us that Facebook expects others to launch such products, which is why they are spending money to deny others the right to launch such products.

It's simple. Don't use Facebook. And if possible don't use a smartphone.

I am not a Facebook user nor do I carry a smart phone for some of the very reasons listed here. These product ideas may or may not be in use now, but it's clear where the company and technology generally are headed. And now we know why an earlier office shot of Mark Zuckerberg showed the camera on his computer taped over. It does feel like an all-seeing eye, watching your every move. He, of anyone, should know how that technology can be exploited. It can't be said often enough: If the service is free, you are the product.