Gizmodo Places Bounty On Pics Of Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg

Every time Facebook changes its privacy settings to allow for more invasion of users’ private information and photos, the company — and especially its founder/figurehead Mark Zuckerberg — talk about how it’s all in the interest of being public and transparent and other things that aren’t true. Meanwhile, Zuck’s own public Facebook page is essentially a non-entity and the man is incredibly private about his personal life. Thus, our former in-laws at Gizmodo have decided it’s time to change the privacy settings on Zuckerberg’s life.

The site has issued a $20/photo bounty on photographs of the Facebook CEO that meet the following conditions:

1. Photos and videos must be new. (i.e., post-IPO)
2. Photos must have EXIF data intact.
3. The subject of the photo must obviously be Mark Zuckerberg.
4. Photos taken at conferences or other settings where he has previously announced his attendance don’t count.
5. You must own or have been given the rights to the photos.
6. You must not invade someone’s privacy or break any laws to obtain the photos.

“Facebook’s entire business model relies on you sharing information about yourself and others so it can monetize your private moments–converting your Likes, your friendships, your thoughts and messages into ad campaigns,” writes Gizmodo. “Zuckerberg is claiming ownership of your privacy, one Like at a time. So it only seems fair that we… own something of his as well.”

Meanwhile, we’ve heard a rumor from a non-existent source that Tom from MySpace is paying people $20 to take his photo.

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. Erich says:

    oh, this will NOT end well.

    • Coffee says:

      This is exactly what I was thinking…I have a feeling that someone will not pay very close attention to items five and six on that list and end up in pretty big trouble.

      • Damocles57 says:

        I don’t see any issues. Gizmodo will not pay if someone is in violation of the rules and the photo will not be disseminated. The issue of law breaking is something for the wronged parties to pursue with their local legal jurisdictions

        As to people invading privacy or breaking laws to get photos, that is how most paparazzi make their living. As well as all private investigators and many law enforcement agencies. And all exposé shows on television.

        It is about time that the people who inflict their idea of “privacy” and “consent” and “openness” on the masses are subjected to the same levels (or depths) of scrutiny they believe they have a right to when it applies to others.

  2. Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

    This is great. Thank you, Gizmodo.

  3. zegota says:

    This is stupid.

    “Zuck’s own public Facebook page is essentially a non-entity and the man is incredibly private about his personal life.”

    Wow, so he’s using the exact same option he gives you?

    If you don’t want to use Facebook, don’t use Facebook. If you don’t want information to be publically accessible, don’t make it publically accessible. I seriously don’t get what’s so difficult about this. Facebook is not federally mandated.

    • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

      But he is publically saying he WANTS people to be more open and share more information. But then he does not do so himself.

      • zegota says:

        So? He never said people should be forced to share things against their will, which is essentially what this bounty is implying.

        • MaxH42 thinks RecordStoreToughGuy got a raw deal says:

          Actually, Facebook HAS changed settings such that items that were previously private or limited were suddenly available to a larger audience.

        • guroth says:

          It’s called eating your own dog food.

        • dwtomek says:

          Really? So back when I had an account with privacy locked down as tight as allowed and an update defaulted those settings back to public, that was actually me choosing to make all of that data temporarily available? I would consider it an underhanded way of forcing people to make their data public and available for advertisement purposes.

    • dwtomek says:

      I think it’s more along the lines of how they attempt to spin the privacy policy updates as a positive for their products (if you’re using facebook, you are the product not the consumer). In reality, those policy updates only serve to default users back to public settings so their data can be used to make more of those monies. Unless they’ve stopped the practice of upsetting user privacy settings, then I’m pretty sure this photo bounty is in Mark’s “best interest.” I mean hey, if they want to redefine the term, might as well apply it unilaterally.

    • Bionic Data Drop says:

      So tired of people thinking that freedom of choice equals carte blanche for a business to do whatever the hell they want. If you’re going to be a corporate defender, get a better defense. That one simply isn’t good enough.

    • Snip says:

      Oh, but if there were any way to make it Federally mandated I bet they’d jump all over that. Weren’t you there for the ridiculous recent news stories about us “Facebook Holdouts” where the media was agape at us like we were three-headed monsters? Facebook makes money on how many faces it can get to look at companies’ ads. People who are not participating represent an impediment to growth for them. Now they’ve finally cottoned on that we represent a very finite resource and they’re going after your kids by trying to lower the age to join. Bonanza!

  4. akirabass says:

    And I remember, yet again, why I stopped reading Gizmodo.

    • Gman says:

      Yup. Too many of the articles are clickbait, or crud like this that have no real value beyond getting them page views.

      They used to be much better. On par with Engadget and Cnet. But man they have fallen so, so far in search of the almighty page view.

    • deadandy says:

      I stopped reading that site when they switched to that retarded new layout.

      • bigTrue says:

        Glad to know I’m not the only one. The new layout is so goddamn stupid. I just want to read every story headline and know I’m not missing anything. That layout reminds me of wandering into a room of doors but I never get to know what the other doors had behind them.

    • BorkBorkBork says:

      I couldn’t stand Nick Denton’s hubris (owner of the Gawker sites) so I stopped visiting all of them.

  5. MrMagoo is usually sarcastic says:

    Gizmodo = Creeps.

  6. kursk says:

    Actually Tom from Myspace is very happily retired and an incredible photographer in his own right. He is quite popular in the active photography community over on G+.

  7. Warren - aka The Piddler on the Roof says:

    How’s that worthless stock doing, by the way?

  8. TheMansfieldMauler says:

    Facebook’s entire business model relies on you sharing information about yourself and others so it can monetize your private moments—converting your Likes, your friendships, your thoughts and messages into ad campaigns…Zuckerberg is claiming ownership of your privacy, one Like at a time.

    That’s an overly dramatic interpretation of Facebook. While there are privacy settings to keep other members from seeing your info, there is no privacy expectation between your own account and the company. Of course they know about your likes, etc. – you’re on their site clicking stuff which you expect them to save and retrieve on demand.

    What do people expect? Does anyone really believe some completely free service is out there with the goal of providing you all this stuff that they’ll never be compensated for out of the goodness of their hearts?

    On second thought don’t answer that. There are too many people who believe the purpose of a corporation is to provide jobs and help people.

    • Velkyr says:

      That’s a good point. A few days ago I was talking to my girlfriend about companies that ask for facebook passwords or to add them as a friend to get employment. It then hit me. What if I was applying at facebook? They would be able to see literally everything. From what I sent in PM’s and deleted, any deleted tags, things i limited so only I can see it, where I logged in from, etc.

      As the database is owned by the company, would the company require you to sign a release form for them to look at that database in terms of looking at you for employment?

    • StarKillerX says:

      The problem is that most people misunderstand the fundimental truth about Facebook, and similar sites, the Facebook use is not the customer and instead they are the product being sold.

  9. dulcinea47 says:

    Isn’t what they’re asking for an “invasion of privacy” by its own description? And then they ask you not to invade anyone’s privacy. Don’t really see that working out too well.

    • dwtomek says:

      If you’re out walking a public street, where privacy cannot be expected, there would be no invasion of privacy. This applies to any of the many instances where privacy cannot be expected. Just think Paparazzi, except with a gangly billionaire as the subject, instead of an attractive millionaire.

    • econobiker says:

      Facebook is the same as when you are in certain establishment, your actions become that establishments property. As long as the operators post that “you may have pictures taken and your likeness used in advertising” the establishment is off the hook on privacy. Facebook is the website equivalent of that.

  10. Blueskylaw says:

    Will Gizmodo pay a bonus if we photograph Zuckerberg butchering his next meal?

  11. KitanaOR says:

    Where is this idea that FB is invading your privacy coming from? They share what YOU put up on FB in the first place. Good grief.

    • Blueskylaw says:

      They invade my privacy when they keep changing my privacy settings without my permission. If I have my account set to private/don’t share, what makes Facebook think I want it re-set to public just because they replaced a comma with a semi-colon in their TOS?

      • scoosdad says:

        I have a similar pet peeve with companies who think that just because I notified them of a change of email address, that gave them permission to opt me back into all their marketing spam I had carefully opted out of in the past.

        • nugatory says:

          or those companies that think placing an order with them means you automatically want to be signed up for news letters.

      • StarKillerX says:

        The company I work for sells plastic bottles, RJ Reynolds sells cigarettes, Budweiser sells what they laughingly call beer, KFC sells chicken and Facebook sells the your information that you willing give them.

        What’s the issue?

  12. typetive says:

    The Gizmodo posting starts by stating as “fact” that Zuckerberg doesn’t believe in privacy, but cites a tweet by a NYTimes columnist about an admitted off-record chat with an un-named employee of Facebook who tosses off the statement with a laugh.

    If the thesis is centered on this, it’s thin at best.

    (A possible $20 as a photo license fee is also laughable.)

  13. umbriago says:

    It’s not that hard, the Daily Mail – chewing gum for the mind – has basically been following him and his wife around on their honeymoon, after all.

    And really, if you don’t like what Facebook does with your personal information, don’t say anything, don’t join: they don’t have to own the cow when you’re giving ‘em the milk for free.

  14. theblackdog says:

    In a week Gizmodo will be back to fapping to the latest stolen iPhone 5 that they bought and won’t give back. Nothing to see here.

  15. Malik says:

    “Facebook’s entire business model relies on you sharing information about yourself and others so it can monetize your private moments”

    “You sharing information”

    “Your private moments”

    If you are sharing information about your private moments, you already have issues

    Facebook is simply a platform that allows users a voice, now people are complaining that there is someone listening to those voices.

    You “Like” a page/product, suddenly you are mad that some advertiser noticed that you “Liked” that product. You load an app that is designed to automatically share any newspaper article you read with your friends and now you want to complain that the app is sharing your reading habits with your friends? If there is a piece of information you do not want share with everyone, don’t load it onto a website!

    Loading information onto a website is the exact opposite of keeping something private. You put something online because you want to share it

  16. smo0 says:

    This is a very valid wake up call.
    Many people are “forced” into facebook because everyone else is on it.

    I know people who DON’T use facebook, but at one time DID have a facebook. Even if you’ve never, personally, registered on the site – if one of your family members are there, and they create their family tree/timeline, they can add your name and a default (dummy) page is created for you.

    It’s almost like you don’t have a choice.

    However, you don’t have to actively participate in/on facebook. That’s fine, there are lots of people who don’t and more and more joining the ranks of anti-facebook users because of the abuse.

    You are a public commodity, your online persona as far as facebook is concerned is up for trade.

    However, you must realize – many of the “stockholders” of facebook are on facebook themselves.

    Or should we abide the drug dealer’s motto of never partake in your own product?

    Some things to think about. You can always leave facebook, you can avoid partaking in it’s activities, but you will always be on it – SOMEWHERE.

  17. Moniker Preferred says:

    I would like it better if Gizmodo upped the offer to $5k, especially if the Zuckerazzi would happen to catch him with a mankini stuck up his crack, or in a compromising position with a goat (Just for example, not that I have any information whatsoever that Zucko actually DOES such things!)

    If the paparazzi can take photos like that of celebrities every day, then they can surely legally take same-kind photos of a hugely rich public figure like Zuckerberg. According to news stories, Zucko allegedly has said that “none of the cool kids care about privacy”, so why should you? Karma, I say.

  18. Press1forDialTone says:

    Zuckerberg is the single most disliked information technology
    related person by all reputable, knowledgeable IT professionals
    age 40 and higher. This demographic represents those people
    in the industry who are the progenitors of the entire arc of blazing
    integrated circuit chip-based hardware and (and related software)
    technologies from the late ’70s to today. All others pale in comparison
    to the damage that Facebook (under management of Z) is causing
    and will continue to cause to privacy in general throughout the world
    and the pain that will cause. “Move fast and brake things”. He should be
    deeply ashamed for destroying the reputations of the people in an entire
    industry, for all are gradually being associated with his reckless, criminal-adjacent
    business behavior. He knows what he is doing is potentially damaging and
    perhaps will be deemed criminal as his “we are watching you” credo dwarfs even
    Google as time passes. We put Martha Stewart behind bars for $40,000 of insider
    trading. When our IT privacy laws finally catch up to reality (wishful thinking),
    Zuckerberg will have no privacy of his own, a just end.

  19. Rhinoguy says:

    I know little to nothing about FB but that’s because I never signed up. Which makes me ignorant but not stupid. Someone I know said they would create a FB page for me when I got sick so everyone could keep track of my situation without putting forth any effort. Since I am not a member I can’t search the site to see if the page exists. Does anyone know how to do this?

  20. Keep talking...I'm listening says:

    Anyone want to start a pool on Zuckerberg nudes?

  21. sp4rxx says:

    Wow … if those criteria were implemented for everything, say, Hollywood stars, the “entertainment” magazines would be out of business!