According to the KrebsOnSecurity blog, the famous adultery website, AshleyMadison.com, has been hacked. Along with the hack they threatened to leak details including credit cards, sexual fantasies, and nude photos. There are as many as 37 million customers on the website.

The dating website AshleyMadison.com’s Canadian parent, Avid Life Media, confirmed the breach on its systems, and said it had since secured the site and was working with law enforcement agencies to trace those behind the attack.

It’s not too surprising a site like Ashley Madison would be targeted since the websites audience has a lot at stake.

It is also reported by a number of news sources that the latest attacks on GitHub were launched by Chinese hackers. The hackers are continuing to evolve and improve their techniques, according to GitHub’s official statement. They are using redirection techniques from two of the most visited pages in China from the China’s search engine Baidu. The first page from where the traffic is being redirected is the New York Time’s Chinese news language pages, whereas the other one is Greatfire.org, an information website which tells about the government censorship in China.

The Wall Street Journal quotes some sources which are now claiming that the attacks are directly coming from the high-level official internet infrastructure within China, which points towards the speculation that the hacking attack is done by government-backed Chinese hackers. Baidu, the Chinese search engine has released a statement, denying the notion that its systems are being used in the GitHub DDos attack.

“We were recently able to confirm that there was unauthorized access to a Slack database storing user profile information. We have since blocked this unauthorized access and made additional changes to our technical infrastructure to prevent future incidents,” said the Slack’s statement.

Slack has been hailed as the best communication app for iOS and Android which could be used by companies, co-working environments and anyone for productivity.

Unfortunately, several sources have confirmed that Slack security systems are not that state of the art. It still uses the central server where all the information about users like passwords, usernames, Skype, phone numbers, are saved. The passwords are encrypted with one way authentication. It is also being said that Slack server saves all the chats and no encryption is used for chats whatsoever. Slack is yet to shed light on the cause of this attack and what information was leaked.

Slack has added two-factor authentication after the attack, but the users will have to open their profile first, toggle the two factor authentication on and then use it with their phone number.

]]> https://socialmediaseo.net/2015/03/27/slack-confirms-its-servers-are-hacked/feed/ 0 https://socialmediaseo.net/2015/02/17/lethal-malware-infecting-external-hard-drives-of-samsung-toshiba-seagate-for-20-years/#utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=lethal-malware-infecting-external-hard-drives-of-samsung-toshiba-seagate-for-20-years https://socialmediaseo.net/2015/02/17/lethal-malware-infecting-external-hard-drives-of-samsung-toshiba-seagate-for-20-years/#respond Tue, 17 Feb 2015 22:12:54 +0000 http://preview.socialmediaseo.net/?p=31942 Kaspersky, the famous security company has claimed that a group called ‘Equation’ has been infecting external hard drives with a firmware resident malware for no less than 20 years. This malware is so lethal that it can never be detected nor destroyed. Perhaps the only way to get rid of this malware is to physically destroy the device. Kaspersky detailed this interesting reveal in a blog post and said that it has identified that ‘Equation’ group— which used ‘similar’ techniques as used by US intelligence agencies— is infecting hard drives of almost all famous companies with a lethal malware.

The external hard drives which could be effected are from famous companies like Seagate, Western Digital, Samsung.

Kaspersky lab blog post said that this sophisticated attack targeted countries like Russia, China, Afghanistan, India and Pakistan. The report also claimed that the encryption techniques used by the Equation group had a striking similarity with NSA techniques that were leaked in some documents in 2013.

The lethal firmware malware works in two-pronged fashion. As soon as it gets on the hard drive, it creates sectors and partitions in it which can only be accessed by secret API (application programming interface). Once the malware gets hold, any kind of formatting, partitioning, antivirus scans cannot remove it.

The source said that such kind of sophisticated malware is there in the books but this is the first time it has been practically seen with all its meticulous implementation.

Kaspersky says that most hard drive vendors use ATA commands that are publicly available. These commands and firmware architecture was exploited by the Equation group. The malware is named as ‘Equationdrug’ and ‘GrayFish’.

Facebook’s Motivations: A Digital Popularity Contest

Though among the most popular social networking sites in the world with over 1.2 billion registered users, Facebook has been losing market share with younger demographics in recent years. The Pew Research Center recently conducted a study revealing waning interest in Facebook from the key teen demographic since its expansion to include more adults, elderly and advertisers among its users. With competitors such as Twitter and Tumblr vying for market share, Facebook can ill afford to lose ground with teens. It seems likely that this most recent move to expand youth privileges on their site is in the interest of reigniting teen ardor for a Facebook presence.

Adult Abilities, Child Judgment

Facebook’s move has been panned by many critics who have noted the dangers of increased exposure of children to advertisers. Children do not have the cognitive disposition to reject the manipulation that marketers put out. Harvard Medical School psychiatry professor and director of Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, Susan Linn, told NBC News that children are susceptible to manipulation such as that of advertisers trying to send a message to kids that certain products will result in happiness. Facebook’s previous restriction prevented advertisers from using their posts to cater their marketing campaigns to specific children. With those restrictions gone, marketers have free reign to target children more effectively than ever before.

Making this issue all the more salient are the figures reported by the Internet Watch Foundation, an independent self-regulatory body of which Facebook has been a member since 2010, that more than 12,000 “selfies” in photographic and video form have been found on child pornography websites. Facebook’s new allowances could fuel this Internet trade for years to come with the provision of open access to thousands of images of children.

A Positive Step?

Not all commentaries agree that Facebook’s self-deregulation is a bad thing. Stephen Balkam of the Family Online Safety Institute and member of Facebook’s safety committee has called the move “a positive step” representing an evolved view of teen privacy that rely on teenagers and parents. Facebook points to the fact that new members will have automatic privacy settings limiting posting to their listed “friends” instead of “friends of friends” as was previously the policy. Changing these settings involves prompting teens twice before allowing them to proceed. By changing their policies, Facebook and its advocates argue they open up a larger forum for education and expression of opinions at an earlier age.

Protection and Prevention

While Facebook argues that the expertise of teens in controlling privacy settings offers adequate protection, the Pew study shows that only 9 percent of teens are concerned with third parties accessing their data while 91 percent post pictures of themselves, 71 percent share their school and hometown name and 20 percent post their cell phone numbers. Despite these statistics, there are ways to limit the online presence of teenagers and protect them from excess exposure.

One way to limit your teen’s online presence is by setting a maximum allowable daily screen time and enforcing a screen-free day once per week. Educate your children early to the responsibilities of Internet and social network usage. Talk to your teens about the dangers that potentially await them and warn them to limit what personal information they share. As part of this process, walk through their privacy settings with them to ensure they have not enabled public sharing features.

Tech Vs. Tech

With predation in the techno-sphere becoming ever more powerful, many parents are interested in taking proactive measures to protect their children, beyond what education can provide. LifeLock, for example, offers customizable identity, data and fraud protection services. Parents can seek further protection with the SAINT App, software that allows children to use Facebook while filtering out any sexually explicit material. Another effective service, ZoneAlarm Social Guard, was noted by the Wall Street Journal as an effective means of monitoring your children’s Facebook account for hacking, predation, pornography and unwanted activity without violating your child’s privacy or alerting their friends to your observation.

Over the past few days there has been a viral riddle circulating the internet called “the Great Giraffe Challenge”.  The Facebook Giraffe Riddle has been an internet phenomenon, leading some to think the riddle may be linked to a virus by hackers who want to steal Facebook accounts.  The riddle goes like this:

“3:00am, the doorbell rings and you wake up. Unexpected visitors, it’s your parents and they are here for breakfast. You have strawberry jam, honey, wine, bread and cheese. What is the first thing you open?”

Those who can’t solve it are asked to change their profile pictures to an image of a giraffe and keep it that way for three days.

Feel free to try and answer the riddle and understand that it’s not really a hoax and it’s safe to change your profile picture to a giraffe.  Now when you see all of your friends facebook profile pictures changed to giraffes you know why.

At first it was thought that Obama’s Twitter account was hacked after a shortened link sent users to a Syrian account, however it was found to be the URL shortened software that was hijacked instead.  By hijacking the URL shortener, they were able to redirect user’s to the link of their choice!

Obama campaign group Organizers for Action: “An account with our link shortener was hacked. [But] at no point did they have access to the Twitter handle.” Twitter has also confirmed to us that there’s no evidence the Twitter account was hacked. The tweet was up for 19 hours before the redirect was noticed, making it possible that the change happened only recently. Not long after, the link was fixed; it now sends readers to Barack Obama’s site.

We accessed many Obama campaign emails accounts to assess his terrorism capabilities. They are quite high #SEA pic.twitter.com/ARgGLX8IjN

— SyrianElectronicArmy (@Official_SEA16) October 28, 2013

Facebook was launched by Mark Zukerberg, a sophomore at Harvard College in the 2003. Initially it was called Facemash. He managed to hack into several campus servers to download the first profile pictures. In January 2004, Zukerberg began writing code for a new website which he launched in February 2004. He named it The Facebook originally located at thefacebook.com. Initial membership was allowed for students only. A high school version was launched in 2005 and later that year, to employees of several companies. In 2006, the site was made public to everyone with an e-mail address between the ages of 13 and above. In 2007, there were more than 100,000 business advertisements on the site. In 2008, an international headquarters was set up in Dublin and later moved in 2011 to Microsystems Campus in California. The site deletes 20,000 profiles every day, for infractions such as inappropriate content, spam and underage use. DoubleClick statistics of July 2011, indicated that the site had reached one trillion page views.

Facebook’s 1.2 billion profile pictures displayed on a single web page was launched on 30th September 2013. Natalia Rojas, a creative technologist, discovered that she could access everyone’s profile picture on Facebook. At first glance, the web page appears static.The profile pictures displayed are in color pixels that reveal a photo when zoomed in. Ms. Rojas website is not a giant social networking empire and the servers do not have the capability to serve everyone at the same time. The number of visitors to the site is overwhelming, with over 1 million in the first two days. She is not opposed to any person who wishes to use her data but she is not willing to sell. Facebook’s 1.2 billion profile pictures displayed on a single web page took her one and a half years to complete. A lot of time and money in creation and maintenance.

Apparently deeply frustrated by this brush off from the Facebook team, Khalil used the glitch to bring home the point pointedly, by hacking into Zuckerberg’s Facebook profile page. He also apparently send a post to Zuckerberg (deleted immediately), apologizing for breaking into the privacy of his FB account.

The Facebook team swung into action by suspending Khalil’s account, alarmed that Mark Zuckerberg’s Facebook Page has been hacked. Facebook’s security engineer sent a mail to Khalil requesting him to provide details of his exploit. After receiving the details from Khalil, the security engineer mailed that the details provided were not enough to reproduce an issue, and thus effectively denied Khalil the credit for bringing this glitch to the notice of Facebook.

Facebook has a proven policy of paying money to any hacker who finds security flaws in the social network. The minimum bounty amounts to $500. But the company denied Khalil the money on the ground that Khalil had violated Facebook’s Terms of Service, through his actions.

Facebook’s security team have claimed to have fixed the bug, while admitting that the company should have asked Khalil for more details when he had first reported the glitch, instead of brushing him off.

Facebook has claimed to have paid over $1 million to hundreds of reporters who have brought glitches to the notice of the company. The company admits that most of the genuine glitches are reported by people who are not comfortable with English, but at the same time the company claimed to have received hundreds of reports which were nonsense or misguided, and thus Khalil’s report, could have been an error creeping into the system of scanning reports. This brings down the curtain on the sensational breaking news that a security expert hacks Mark Zuckerberg\s Facebook Page

The intelligent security engineer for application is a recognized expert in finding vulnerabilities in Facebook, Google and Etsy also bagged the $20,000 set as a bounty to remove the flaws and described how severe the issue was.
Jack Whitten known as “fin1te,” in his blog , wrote how he discovered such a harmful flaw in Facebook that happened a month ago which allows an attacker to hack anyone’s account with a minimal effort . The researcher has discovered that there is a chance in resetting password of anyone’s Facebook account by simply finding a loophole lin Facebook’s mobile update facility that was offered by Facebook for users who are on the go as evolution of technology has made us to have easier communication. Whenever a user register a phone,the Facebook site sends authentification code by SMS but Whitten found that there is a chance to rectify the profile id column in the Facebook mobile confirmation page of a different Facebook user. Then, Facebook asks for a password but unknowingly not the one of the victim to be. The process eventually links the attacker with the account of the victim

To solve this, Whitten initiated a password reset for the victim’s account and the code was needed in resetting the password was sent to Whitten’s mobile, attached with a link of password reset page.
He concluded his solution by entering the code into the form, choose a new password and lastly describing, it’s done, the account is ours in his blog.

Apple rolled out an update just two days ago and there is already another method to bypass the iPhone passcode lock.  Youtube user videosdebarraquito posted a video described as “Sorry, iOS 6.1.3 has a new security flaw, but can be avoided easily. You should disable the “Voice Dial” option if you want to be safe.”  This new hack makes the iPhone seem very vulnerable after only 2 days of a patch.  We’ll see how Apple responds to this new hack!  In the meantime, just disable your voice dial to stay secure.  You can see the video below.

One of the first comments is pretty funny:

About iOS 6.1.3 Software Update

This update contains improvements and bug fixes, including:

•  Fixes a bug that could allow someone to bypass the passcode and access the Phone app
•  Improvements to Maps in Japan

For information on the security content of this update, please visit this website: http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1222.

iOS: How to update your iPhone, iPad or iPod touch article http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4623.

Considering that over a billion people use Facebook, 500 million Twitter and 400 million Google+, the consideration that our information may not be as secure as we hope is more prevalent than ever.

To minimize the risk and to have a higher chance of protecting your information when using social media platforms, there are several things you need to be doing. If you are not doing these now, then you really should be.

Maintain a good password

It’s the most obvious, but there are still a lot of people who don’t put any real thought into their password security.

Amongst the top passwords that people use, which are easily hackable are:

1. Password (unchanged from 2011)
2. 123456
3. 12345678

If you want your information to stay secure, you must choose something that cannot easily be included in a dictionary attack.

Morgan Slain of SplashData, a computer security firm, recommends using passphrases. These are strings of words linked through dashes, full stops and underscores.

It’s also good practice to change your password (or phrase) every 50 days too.

Check settings regularly

As many of the social sites update on a regular basis, it’s recommended to check your preferences every once in a while to ensure that they are still set to your specs.

Often, an update will automatically reset your preferences and you might not notice until too late. Keeping an eye out will minimize the risk of this happening for too long.

Don’t reveal too much

Identity theft is one of the main disadvantages of using social media. In 2011 approximately 12 million Americans suffered from some form of identity theft and this was mainly due to the increase in social networking site usage.

The information you provide can be turned against you, so understand that it’s not necessary to type in every exact detail of your personal life onto the internet. For example:

• Don’t tag your location when you are updating about going on holiday
• Don’t choose usernames that reveal information that could be used against you  e.g ‘JoeManchester1985’
• Compartmentalize. Try to limit what you share on each social platform. Information on Facebook should be different from the information you share on Twitter.

Getting an education

The best advice anyone could give is for you to brush up on your internet security protocols. Make sure that you understand how malicious programs and people can access and use your social media information. Read articles that explain common mistakes and how to avoid them.

David Ingram is a part of the Digital Marketing Team at HANDD.co.uk, a leading provider of data security solutions. They specialize in data loss prevention and secure file transfer products.

The UDID is a unique 40-digit code assigned to each iOS device and is often used by developers to distribute beta apps to an iOS device. Besides the UDID, some records in the FBI database also contained names, addresses, mobile phone numbers and other identifying information. The group stripped out most of the personal information from the 1 million leaked records, but left the Unique Apple Device ID, Apple Push Notification Service DevToken, Device Name and Device Type, so users can search for their device.

Find out if your Apple ID has been hacked

First find your Apple UDID

To find your iPhone’s UDID, just plug it into your computer and wait until iTunes recognizes it. Select your phone from the Devices list in iTunes and click the “Summary” tab. To see your UDID, click on the word “serial number” beside the picture of the iPhone. You should see the word “identifer” and an alphanumeric string – this is your UDID.

Search for your Apple ID

Search through the leaked records using The Next Web tool.

So what if they have my email and password?

What do hackers do with millions of email addresses other than the potential embarrassment to these users?  The hackers can use these emails and passwords to try and access more sensitive accounts like Facebook, PayPal, etc…  Recently someone got a hold of my Gmail account, and let me tell you, it wasn’t pretty what they did.  I learned a valuable lesson: If you use one password across the web, a hacker can access almost anything.  For example:  if you use your “myname@gmail.com” account and password “1234” in your gmail, facebook, some random site, another random site, anther site you forgot about, then all it takes is for a hacker to gain access to one of those sites to get into all of your accounts.  They can even reset passwords so you can’t access accounts.  Soon I’ll explain how I got hacked and you’ll understand better!

With all of the ways Facebook has revolutionized communication, it comes as zero surprise that Facebook has revolutionized the rules of dating as well. So that you don’t have to change your relationship status to “single,” be sure to check out some of the ways that the world’s most popular social networking site can ravage your relationship and how you can avoid it:

Defining/not defining the relationship. Even if you have been in an exclusive relationship for seven years, for many Facebook subscribers, nothing is truly official until “in a relationship (insert hear icon)” is posted on your profile and mini-feeds for all to “like.” Unless you want a status of “it’s complicated” be sure that you discuss defining your relationship on and off Facebook to make sure you and your partner are on the same page—NEVER change your Facebook relationship status without talking about it first.

Stalking. Everyone does it—and they’re lying if they say they don’t. But if you let it get out of hand, there is the possibility that a little innocent Facebook stalking can turn into a raging jealous obsession with the potential to derail your entire relationship. Do you log onto your Facebook account and before checking your own notifications or messages you head straight to your partner’s profile to make sure that they haven’t friended anyone new of the opposite sex and that no one of the opposite sex has posted on their wall? Do you perform this sick routine on an average of 19 times per day? Well, if so—you might have more than just a light stalking problem. As hard as it can be to keep cool when jealous and obsessive feelings are consuming you, step away from the laptop, continue breathing and be confident in your relationship.

Oversharing. Okay, the whole idea of Facebook is to share and connect with friends, right? However, there comes a point when posting an album complete with 121 pictures of you and your lover in the same kissy-poses becomes too much. Keep the PDA to a minimum if you don’t want your friends to unfriend/block you. Also too much? Composing status updates pertaining to each and every little argument that you and your partner have. This will do nothing but draw negative attention and comments to your relationship. There’s a place for expressing such emotion—and that would be in a
diary—NOT on Facebook.

Exchanging/hacking passwords. If you wish to maintain a healthy, happy relationship on and off Facebook, do not, REPEAT, DO NOT exchange passwords or deceitfully hack into the Facebook account of your better half. Engaging in this bad habit will do nothing but leave you miserably analyzing every friend request, invite or message that they received from an ex back in 2005. Why put yourself through such trauma? Trust is an essential ingredient to any successful relationship—so unless your partner has proved to you before that they are a no-good, lying cheater, then you have no reason not to give them
your full trust, respect and Facebook privacy.

Keeping old pictures. It can be tough to part with memories, but if you’ve got a Facebook filled with memories of an old flame, for your new flame’s sake, it might be best to delete the ex pictures. The past is the past and your ex is an ex for a reason…don’t risk your new partner feeling insecure or worried that you are still hung up on an old relationship. Give your Facebook a makeover and get up to date with new content of your new relationship.

Joe Morris is a guest post author who shares with us the ways that Facebook can unravel a relationship. In addition, Joe also owns Best Internet Dating Sites where he offers online dating advice to singles on the web.

OOPS!  NYT made a huge mistake sending out an email on Wednesday.  They mistakenly sent an email to over 8.6 million people rather than 300.  The email sent out told people they’d cancelled their print subscription, and urged them to reconsider by offering a special discount — 50% off for 16 weeks.

Many Twitter followers started thinking that New York Times was hacked or spammed.  They started to publish Tweet’s like, “Was New York Times Hacked?”, but this was not the case according to NYT.  This is a simple mistake if you’ve ever used newsletter software.  It’s very easy to have multiple lists checked off for a blast or get campaigns mixed up.  I guess it could’ve been worse though, what if it was something more personal?  This makes you realize what happens when a business is on a large scale.  It’s so much more detrimental to send off a newsletter than a website with 10,000 subscribers!  All I know is that I wouldn’t like to be the one who takes the blame for sending out that email, what about you?

SOPA stands for the Stop Online Piracy Act. It is one of two bills being considered by congress today. The other is theProtect-IP Act.  They are well-intentioned. They want to prevent piracy and copyright infringement. But they do so in an overly-aggressive, innovation-endangering way. They allow the entertainment industry to censor sites they feel “engage in, enable or facilitate” infringement.

Mozilla Helps Stop SOPA

Right now, the U.S. Congress is considering legislation that could profoundly affect the future of the internet. It’s called the Stop Online Piracy Act.

The fact is that this legislation as written won’t stop piracy. But it would pose a serious threat to social media and user generated content sites (like YouTube) across the internet. It could also undermine some of the core technical systems underlying the internet, creating new cybersecurity risks.

As a non-profit committed to keeping the web open and accessible to all, Mozilla wants to ensure that this legislation does not jeopardize the foundational structure of the Internet.

So we’ve done two things so far:

1) Earlier this week, we wrote a joint letter with Facebook, Google, Twitter, eBay, Yahoo! and other technology companies publicly opposing this legislation — and placed ads in various influential newspapers across the country.

2) We also joined other organizations in a day of action on November 16th — when hearings were being held in the U.S. House — to draw attention to the issue and get people to contact their representatives.

But these are only the first steps toward ensuring that the proposed legislation does not pass as currently written.

If you’d like to get involved, please sign up using the form on the right. We’ll be in touch with ways to help in this campaign along with our other efforts to defend and improve the Web.

If you are not in the U.S., please pass this page along to anyone you know in the States — and I’d encourage you to sign up anyway, to stay informed about what we’re up to.

Sign up to help stop SOPA!

It appears the Apple website is down today after the launch of the iPhone 5.  Could this be from the amount of traffic that came from the recent release or did a hacker plan this as the perfect day to strike?

Here’s the message on their website:

Access Denied

You don’t have permission to access “http://www.apple.com/” on this server.

Reference #18.695ef648.1317754391.132b13fd

Why do you think Apple’s website is not working?

“A while ago it was Charlie Sheen. And then it was Sarah Palin. And then it was Donald Trump,” said Richardson, who is a video producer for Make Magazine. “And after a while I realized there’s sort of always someone who I don’t really want to hear about.”

Richardson combined a couple of Arduino circuit boards with an infrared LED light — that little red bubble on the front of your TV remote — and programmed the whole thing to interact with a TV’s closed-captioning system.

As long as that person’s name keeps coming up, the remote keeps muting the TV. The first time he got it to work, Richardson said he “was in silent bliss for that 30 seconds I didn’t have to hear about Kim Kardashian.”

He explains the remote in detail in his blog post.  Although it’s not 100% accurate an may miss the first reference at times, user’s are already thinking about inventive ways to use Matt’s Enough Already Auto-Mute Remote.

“You could generate the list of key words dynamically. E.g., by monitoring Twitter’s trending topics or by parsing Google’s zeitgeist lists,” one reader suggests.

One user has a great idea for a college drinking game:

“Back in my college days we had a drinking game based on the Bob Newhart Show. Every time someone said his name (Bob) everyone had to take a shot and if they said Robert (usu. only his Dad) it was a 2 shots deal. You’d get rather toasted before first commercial so it tended to end there.

So monitor the feed for ‘Bob” and then sound off a buzzer or bell circuit instead of IR LED. Have simple box with bell/light or ????. “

In the wake of the threat to kill Facebook on November 5, 2011 by hacker collective Anonymous, the historical figure Guy Fawkes is starting to be looked at pretty intensely.  It is apparent that Anonymous is emulating the threat, or the date, of where Guy Fawkes threatened to take down Parliament on November 5th.  Ironically, Guy Fawkes failed his mission.  So it seems to me that the same fate will follow Anonymous.  In fact, according to Wikipedia, November 5 was the date that Guy Fawkes was captured for his spoiled attempt.  Again, I would say that Guy  Fawkes is probably the wrong guy for Anonymous to be emulating their mission to destroy Facebook after.

Watch the video threat from Anonymous kill Facebook on November 5.

A group of hackers who call themselves Anonymous have made a pretty serious threat.  And that is, on November 5, 2011 they are going to, and I quote “kill Facebook, the medium of communication [we] all so dearly adore.”

Anonymous has been responsible for cyber-attacks in the past on organizations such as the Pentagon, News Corp, and other popular establishments.  Their threat to kill Facebook is, no doubt, being taken seriously by Facebook and other organizations.

Below is the full text of the warning issued by Anonymous via YouTube and posted by BI:

Operation Facebook

DATE: November 5, 2011.

TARGET: https://facebook.com

Press:
Twitter : https://twitter.com/OP_Facebook

Irc.Anonops.Li #OpFaceBook
Message:

Attention citizens of the world,

We wish to get your attention, hoping you heed the warnings as follows:
Your medium of communication you all so dearly adore will be destroyed. If you are a willing hacktivist or a guy who just wants to protect the freedom of information then join the cause and kill facebook for the sake of your own privacy.

Facebook has been selling information to government agencies and giving clandestine access to information security firms so that they can spy on people from all around the world. Some of these so-called whitehat infosec firms are working for authoritarian governments, such as those of Egypt and Syria. 

Everything you do on Facebook stays on Facebook regardless of your “privacy” settings, and deleting your account is impossible, even if you “delete” your account, all your personal info stays on Facebook and can be recovered at any time. Changing the privacy settings to make your Facebook account more “private” is also a delusion. Facebook knows more about you than your family. 

You cannot hide from the reality in which you, the people of the internet, live in. Facebook is the opposite of the Antisec cause. You are not safe from them nor from any government. One day you will look back on this and realise what we have done here is right, you will thank the rulers of the internet, we are not harming you but saving you.

The riots are underway. It is not a battle over the future of privacy and publicity. It is a battle for choice and informed consent. It’s unfolding because people are being raped, tickled, molested, and confused into doing things where they don’t understand the consequences. Facebook keeps saying that it gives users choices, but that is completely false. It gives users the illusion of and hides the details away from them “for their own good” while they then make millions off of you. When a service is “free,” it really means they’re making money off of you and your information.

Think for a while and prepare for a day that will go down in history. November 5 2011, #opfacebook . Engaged.

This is our world now. We exist without nationality, without religious bias. We have the right to not be surveilled, not be stalked, and not be used for profit. We have the right to not live as slaves.

We are anonymous
We are legion
We do not forgive
We do not forget
Expect us

As a follow up to my article yesterday talking about how the SEO benefits of WordPress 3.2 (Gershwin), I wanted to show you something that I found very interesting as a message in my Google Webmaster account for this site.

There was a message, directly from Google Webmaster themselves, where they recognized I was running a WordPress version that was not the latest version, and they wanted to encourage me to upgrade.

Here’s the exact message I got from Google Webmaster:

—————

Messages for socialmediaseo.net 

First of all, I never realized that Google would contact a site owner (me) directly about something like upgrading my WordPress platform.

I mean, who’s ever heard of such a thing?

And then I got to thinking about it, and I think I know why.

As I pointed out yesterday, Google is now factoring site speed in determining search results.

The slower your site, the lower your rankings could be for any given keyword phrase.

And of course, the faster your site, the higher your rankings could be.

So why would Google Webmaster contact me directly to encourage me to upgrade my platform?

To me it seems obvious.

Anyone can see that I’m monetizing my site with Google Adsense – including Google themselves.

It’s also apparent to some (some not so much) that my site is built on WordPress.

In my opinion, Google sees an easy opportunity for me to increase the speed of my WordPress site by simply upgrading to the latest version of WordPress, and thus increasing the overall effectiveness of the SEO of my blog.

And by doing so, it would increase traffic and page views which would then increase ad revenue.

Of course, this would increase ad revenue for me as well, but I doubt (in fact I know…) that wasn’t Google’s intent.

Their intent is to get as many sites as possible to achieve the best rankings as possible – especially those that are running Adsense

So am I way off in this assessment?

Or am I precisely correct?

Did anyone else receive this message?

My first instinct when I saw the video was that its nothing more than some whiz kid on Final Cut Pro hacking up a viral video.

However, watching the video, you can’t help but wonder and imagine if it’s something that might be real.

Could it be that UFO’s would be zipping through the air like that, and then one random UFO would stop to hover in a clear opening in the sky?  And it seems like the UFO was in just the right position for capturing it on video.

Or perhaps the timing and position of the UFO was all coincidental and these videos are real…  what do you think?

George Hotz (aka Geohot), the infamous hacker that was at the forefront of the first jailbreak of the iPhone, and who also published the Sony Playstation’s root keys which landed him in a serious lawsuit, has been hired at Facebook.

Facebook is the perfect place for hackers to work because of Facebook’s traditional hackathons – of which I’m sure Hotz does quite well against other Facebook hackers.

The hiring of hacker George Hotz shows that tech giants like Facebook can find great talent other than the ivory towers of places like Stanford and MIT.

via PCWorld

Daniel Spitler, the 26 year old hacker that hacked into 114,000 of AT&T’s iPad 3G users personal information last year, could be facing up to 10 years in federal prison for his crime.

Spitler, who lives in San Francisco, was pleaded guilty to two crimes: conspiracy to gain unauthorized access to computers and identity theft – both crimes carry a 5 year sentence each.

“Computer hackers are exacting an increasing toll on our society, damaging individuals and organizations to gain notoriety for themselves,” said U.S. Attorney Paul Fishman in New Jersey. “Daniel Spitler’s guilty plea is a timely reminder of the consequences of treating criminal activity as a competitive sport.”

via BGR

WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – X

PAUL D. CEGLIA, an individual,

Plaintiff,

-against-

MARK ELLIOTT ZUCKERBERG,

an individual, and FACEBOOK, INC., formerly known as TheFaceBook, Inc.,

a Delawarecorporation,Defendants.::::::

:CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-569(RJA) FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED- – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – X

Plaintiff PAUL D. CEGLIA (“Ceglia”) alleges:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1.

On April 28, 2003, Mark Elliott Zuckerberg (“Zuckerberg”) entered a writtencontract (the “Agreement”) with Ceglia “for the continued development of the software, programand for the purchase and design of a suitable website for the project Seller [Zuckerberg] hasalready initiated that is designed to offer the students of Harvard university (sic) access to awesite (sic) similar to a live functioning yearbook with the working title of ‘The Face Book.’”

The Agreement further provides that: “It is agreed that Purchaser [Ceglia] will own a halfinterest (50%) in the software, programming language and business interests derived from theexpansion of that service to a larger audience.”

2.

As a matter of law, the Agreement established a general partnership betweenCeglia and Zuckerberg for the development and commercialization of “The Face Book,” theconcept and website with the initial title of “thefacebook.com” and the business interests derivedtherefrom (the “General Partnership”).

As described in the Agreement, Ceglia contributed-2-capital to the General Partnership. And, according to the Agreement, Zuckerberg contributed thesoftware, programming language and website in its then-current form that he had started todesign to offer the students of Harvard University access to a website similar to a livefunctioning yearbook with the working title “The Face Book.”

The course of conduct betweenCeglia and Zuckerberg, after the formation of the General Partnership, shows Ceglia alsocontributed his time, ideas, knowhow and other “sweat equity” to the General Partnership. Asdescribed in the Agreement and the course of conduct after the formation of the GeneralPartnership, Zuckerberg also contributed his time, ideas, knowhow and other “sweat equity” tothe General Partnership.

Their respective contributions resulted in the creation of software,programming language, a website, other intellectual property and business interests, all of whichbecame property of the General Partnership — of which the parties intended and the Agreementspecified that Ceglia is the 50% owner.

3.

As of February 2, 2004, Zuckerberg had not completed “The Face Book” website.

On that same day — February 2, 2004 — Zuckerberg sent to Ceglia emails complaining that aprovision in the Agreement giving Ceglia an additional 1% interest in the business for each dayafter January 1, 2004 that “The Face Book” website was not complete, was unfair because itwould give Ceglia over 80% ownership of the business, including thefacebook.com website.

OnFebruary 3, 2004, Ceglia agreed to waive the provisions in the Agreement that increased hisownership interest in the General Partnership to over 80%. Perhaps not coincidentally, the verynext day, on February 4, 2004, Zuckerberg informed Ceglia by email that the “thefacebook.com”website had launched.

4.

After the website launched, the website was an immediate success.

Zuckerbergthen embarked upon a secret scheme to misappropriate the General Partnership’s assets and-3-opportunities for himself. Zuckerberg did this by concealing the website’s success from Cegliaand misrepresenting to Ceglia that Harvard students were not interested in the website, that hewas losing interest in the venture and was considering abandoning it.

Zuckerberg thenmisappropriated the General Partnership’s

(1) opportunity to expand the website and the FaceBook project beyond Harvard University students and

(2) assets, and contributed them to acorporation formed in July 2004, but never informed Ceglia or accounted for them to the GeneralPartnership or Ceglia.

The corporation is now known as Facebook, Inc. Whatever interestZuckerberg received from contributing the assets of the General Partnership to the corporation— including, but, not limited to, cash, stock, stock options, restricted stock units or any otherconsideration received by or promised to Zuckerberg — was and is property of the GeneralPartnership. Ceglia brings this action to recover, among other things, his 50% share of theinterest acquired by General Partnership as a result of Zuckerberg’s actions.PARTIES

5.

Plaintiff Ceglia is a resident of Wellsville, New York with an address of 2558Hanover Hill Road, Wellsville, New York.

6.

Defendant Zuckerberg currently resides in California.

7.

Defendant Facebook, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of the State ofDelaware and maintains its principal place of business in Palo Alto, California. Facebook, Inc.was incorporated on July 29, 2004, under the name of TheFaceBook, Inc. On September 30,2005, it changed its name to Facebook, Inc.JURISDICTION AND VENUE

8.

On July 9, 2010, this matter was removed to this Court by Defendants on theground of complete diversity under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Complete diversity jurisdiction exists-4-under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 as this action is between citizens of different states and the amount incontroversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and cost.

9.

This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s causes of actionarising under New York State statutory and common law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

10.

This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant Facebook, Inc. becausethis Defendant is authorized by the New York Department of State to do and does business inthis State.

11.

This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Zuckerberg as he hascommitted tortious acts within the State of New York and/or tortious acts outside the State ofNew York which impact a New York resident.

This Court also has personal jurisdiction overDefendant Zuckerberg as he is engaged in substantial activity within this State and because hemaintains an interactive website that is directed towards this State’s persons and entities.Defendant is doing business and has done business in this State and District by offering for usehis products and services.

12.

Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(3) because asubstantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this District.FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

13.

In 2002 and 2003, Ceglia was developing an on-line database that would be, andwas, deployed through a website known as StreetFax.com.

StreetFax.com compiled into adatabase photographs and other information related to traffic intersections that were intended toallow insurance adjusters to easily obtain such information to assist them in handling claims.-5-

14.

From time-to-time, Ceglia hired programmers, web developers and otherindividuals to assist him with developing StreetFax.com. He frequently located such individualsthrough on-line, help wanted advertisements on craigslist.com.

15.

In 2003, Ceglia posted advertisements seeking programmers who would be ableto develop the search engine feature for StreetFax.com that would provide non-specific name searching, synonymous term linking and the ability to comment on specific photographs. Those features, along with others, would allow someone with an account to search for and find thename and location of a specific intersection, and offering the top closest results if an exact matchcould not be found.

This allowed a user to find the right name even if the user misspelled thatname or used an abbreviation that did not match what was entered into the database.

16.

In early 2003, Zuckerberg responded to Ceglia’s craigslist.com advertisement.

17.

Upon learning Ceglia’s requirements, and after several lengthy conversationsabout the possibility and strategy of creating a search engine that could find a specific name aslong as the spelling was “close,” in a telephone conversation in April 2003, Zuckerberg toldCeglia that he was working on a great project.

Zuckerberg told Ceglia if Ceglia hired him towork on the StreetFax.com project and helped fund the development of his other project,Zuckerberg would give Ceglia a one-half interest in Zuckerberg’s other project.

18.

Zuckerberg explained to Ceglia that the other project would involve an on-line,interactive yearbook, which initially would be targeted at students attending Harvard University,where Zuckerberg was also a student.

Zuckerberg told Ceglia that this project was inspired bythe on-line year book used at the boarding school that he attended. Zuckerberg further explainedto Ceglia that the project could be expanded beyond Harvard University.

Zuckerberg told Cegliathat the project’s working title was “The Face Book.”-6-

19.

Ceglia accepted Zuckerberg’s offer and agreed to pay Zuckerberg $1,000 for hiswork on StreetFax.com and $1,000 for work to be performed to continue to develop “The FaceBook.”

20.

Ceglia and Zuckerberg agreed to meet at the Radisson Hotel in Boston,Massachusetts, on April 28, 2003 to sign a written contract.

21.

From his home office in Wellsville, New York, on April 25, 2003, Ceglia prepared the agreement on his computer, combining two different forms of agreements that weregiven to him in the past and modifying them to capture the terms that Zuckerberg and Cegliaagreed to over the telephone.

The agreement covered both the work Zuckerberg agreed to do forStreetFax.com and their agreement concerning The Face Book.

Ceglia printed and saved theagreement on April 25, 2003.

22.

On April 28, 2003, Ceglia, accompanied by Karin Petersen, met Zuckerberg in thelobby of the Radisson Hotel in Boston.

Ceglia provided the agreement to Zuckerberg, who spenta significant amount of time reviewing the agreement. Zuckerberg asked for one change on thefirst page of the agreement, which was handwritten on to the first page of the document andinitialed by Zuckerberg and Ceglia.

Zuckerberg and Ceglia then signed the Agreement, which isattached hereto as Exhibit A. Except for the handwritten interlineations made on April 28, 2003,Ceglia made no changes to the agreement after printing it on April 25, 2003.

23.

The Agreement provides in pertinent part that:

[I]t is for the continued development of the software, program andfor the purchase and design of a suitable website for the project Seller has already initiated that is designed to offer the students ofHarvard university (sic) access to a wesite (sic) similar to a livefunctioning yearbook with the working title of “The Face Book”It is agreed that Purchaser will own a half interest (50%) in thesoftware, programming language and business interests derivedfrom the expansion of that service to a larger audience.-7-

24.

The Agreement defines “Seller” as “Mark Zuckerberg, his agents, employees,suppliers, or sub-contractors, furnishing materials equipment, or services.” The Agreementdefines “Purchaser” as “Paul Ceglia.”

25.

The Agreement further provides that:The Agreed upon Cost that the Seller and the Buyer (sic) haveagreed upon are as follows: Buyer (sic) agrees to pay the seller(sic) the Sum of $1000 a piece for the work to be performed forStreetfax and $1,000 for the work to be performed for ”The PageBook” (sic).

26.

During their conversations before the execution of the Agreement and thereafter,Ceglia and Zuckerberg discussed using the name “The Face Book” and “The Page Book” fortheir venture and, thus, the terms were synonymous.

Indeed, when viewed in the context of theAgreement (along with the other typographical errors, misspellings and failures to consistentlyuse defined terms found in the Agreement), in this provision, the Agreement’s reference to “ThePage Book” clearly is to the same “The Face Book” venture, which is referenced in other parts ofthe Agreement.

27.

The Agreement provides immediately below the interlineations on the first pageof the agreement and adjacent to Zuckerberg’s initials:The agreed upon completion for the expanded project withworking title ”The Face Book” shall be Janruary (sic) 1 (sic) 2004and an additional 1% interest in the business will be due the buyerfor each day the website is delayed from that date.

28.

The Agreement provides continued performance as follows:For “The Face Book” Seller agrees to maintain and act as the sites(sic) webmaster and to pay for all domain and hosting expensesfrom the funds received under this contract, and Seller agrees thathe will maintain control of these services at all times.-8-

29.

Ceglia paid Zuckerberg the $1000 called for in the Agreement for the continueddevelopment of The Face Book. Ceglia also paid Zuckerberg for the work on StreetFax.com,some of which was used for The Face Book.

30.

As a matter of law, the Agreement created a general partnership (defined above asthe “General Partnership”) between Zuckerberg and Ceglia. Zuckerberg’s and Ceglia’scontributions to the General Partnership became, and would become, property of the GeneralPartnership.

The fruits of those contributions — such as the creation of the software, program,the purchase and design of a suitable website and business interests derived from the expansionof that service or website to a larger audience — also became property of the GeneralPartnership.

Further, as a result of the formation of the General Partnership, Zuckerberg andCeglia owed each other fiduciary duties of, among other things, candor, loyalty and good faith.

31.

After Zuckerberg and Ceglia signed the Agreement, they began to communicatewith each other concerning both the StreetFax.com project and The Face Book project.

Those communications occurred over the telephone and through the use of emails. In particular, Zuckerberg and Ceglia communicated with each other concerning the design and functionality of The Face Book website, various ways that they could generate income from The Face Bookwebsite, various ways they could expand The Face Book to a larger audience beyond HarvardUniversity, and technical and other challenges in developing The Face Book website.

32.

On July 30, 2003, Zuckerberg sent an email to Ceglia informing Ceglia that:. . .

I’ve been tweaking the search engine today [referring to theStreetFax.com project] and I’m pleased with its results. I’d like touse it for the Harvard site [referring to The Face Book], I think itwill really help people find each other, even if they spell namesincorrectly.

Would it be agreeable with you if I adapt the sourcecode? Thanks!

33.

On September 2, 2003, Zuckerberg sent an email to Ceglia explaining that:-9-I have been away for a few days without internet, during that time Irevised the business plan for the Harvard site.

I would like to talkto you on the phone about it in detail. As you mentioned last week,the issue we must resolve is how to produce a revenue stream fromthe users.

My conclusion this past week is to charge Alumni$29.95 a month. With this in mind, considering just 300 people,and the projection of a $9000 monthly revenue, we could, as yousuggested, rapidly expand to other colleges.

Further, since the planinvolves more than one college, the name can’t have Harvard in itand remains unresolved. Additionally, both original names>facebook.com and pagebook.com are unavailable, so there is noactual domain name either. thefacebook.com and thepagebook.comare both available but are clearly not a premium quality domain asthey are much harder to remember.

34.

On September 2, 2003, Ceglia responded to Zuckerberg:I like your thinking about funding expansion, I’m not sure amonthly fee is the way to go though, we are having a hard timegetting adjusters to pay it and it’s their business.

I’d be concernedthat we wouldnt (sic) get enough people on there to keep anyoneinterested. Maybe we could make it free until it was popular andthen start charging? I wouldn’t worry too much about a name ifthey are both already gone, are any of them due to expire?

It tookus ages to find Streetfax.com and the minute I did I just knew thatis what I was waiting for. Let’s talk about it on the phone, call metonight if you get this in time.

I suggest we look into a licencing(sic) agreement with Harvard (sic), I had one once with SyracuseUniversity and it was pretty easy, then we could have a store on thesite and sell sweatshirts, mugs, t shirsts (sic) and stuff to alumniand have some money coming in right away.

35.

Ceglia provided Zuckerberg an additional $1000 in November 2003.

36.

On November 22, 2003, Zuckerberg sent Ceglia an email that read in the subjectline, “Urgent! Let’s Talk.”

The email informed Ceglia that:

I have recently met with a couple of upperclassmen here atHarvard that are planning to launch a site very similar to ours. Ifwe don’t make a move soon, I think we will lose the advantage wewould have if we release before them.

I’ve stalled them for thetime being and with a break if you could send another $1000 forthe facebook (sic) project it would allow me to pay my roommateor Jeff to help integrate the search code and get the site live beforethem. Please give me a call so that we can talk more about this.-10-

37.

Communications between Zuckerberg and Ceglia concerning their developmentof The Face Book and the website planned by the Harvard upperclassmen described inZuckerberg’s November 22, 2003 email continued through the balance of 2003.

38.

On January 1, 2004, the date on which the The Face Book website was due to belaunched, Zuckerberg sent an email to Ceglia informing him that:I just wanted to extend to you a Happy New Year and tell you thatall individual parts for the back end of the site have been completed.

The extra $1000 really helped get us further ahead andif there is any way you can send some additional funding I believewe will be online in a few weeks.

I think it is unnecessary at thispoint, with all of the extra work I have done for you, to hold me tothe original completion date.

I should not be penalized for delaysthat were out of my control, namely that there have been so manyunspecified requests from the Streetfax project that you wanted tobe placed as a priority, thereby delaying my start on our secondproject.

Thus, I am requesting a written waiver on your partexempting me from the obligation to give you additionalownership in the project that is outlined in our original contract.

39.

Ceglia responded on the same day with an email explaining to Zuckerberg that hecould not remember the relevant terms of the Agreement and did not have access to it.

Consequently, he could not respond to Zuckerberg’s request for a waiver.

Zuckerberg replied by email to Ceglia, informing him that he would scan the Agreement and send it to him.

40.

The same day, Ceglia then responded by email:Mark, Thanks I’ll look forward to reviewing the details, just a quick question, we seem to be having an issue with the backend that has really been causing us some grief, I know that you’re position is that you’ve (sic) done all the work in the contract andthen some, I guess I am somewhat torn as on one hand in your interest you want me to consider not enforcing my contract while also then making it clear that more money is owed to you for things that weren’t a part of yours, does that make sense to you? It doesnt (sic) to me ..

I am wondering if you see where I am coming from here? You can’t have it both ways Mark

41.

Zuckerberg replied: “I’ll just get this site online as quickly as I can …”-11-

42.

On January 5, 2004, Ceglia sent an email to Zuckerberg, asking him when TheFace Book website would be launched:

It is well past January 1st and to my knowledge you don’t have asingle thing done for the site, (sic) I gave you an extra $lk inNovember so we could rush it ahead of these other guys and as faras I know you don’t even have a domain name or a home pagebuilt, let alone the actual database.

For now I suggest you use mysearch engine and we work out the details. I’m starting to thinkyou just blew that money Mark. You know perfectly well that youcan’t just take a persons (sic) investment and then spend it onwomen and beer or whatever you do up there in Harvard. I’ve beenstalled long enough on this thing and if I don’t see something soon(sic) I’ll have no choice but to contact the school and perhaps yourparents in Dobbs Ferry and let them know whats (sic) been goingon.

43.

Zuckerberg responded on January 6, 2004:Threats to call my parents are uncalled for and unprofessional andyou would be seriously violating our trust by doing so, I have donewhat I can with the small amount of money you have invested andI will have something live for you to view soon.

Again I want tostate that under no circumstances do you have my permission tocontact my parents as they have nothing to do with my businessand just because I am young doesnt (sic) mean I’m afraid of myparents (sic) response. Please do not contact them about this issue,they would probably just laugh you off anyway.

44.

On January 13, 2004 and January 16, 2004, Ceglia and Zuckerberg exchangedemails concerning the functionality of The Face Book’s website and whether they should adaptthe search engine built for StreetFax.com to it.

45.

Recognizing that the delay in launching The Face Book website had the potentialto seriously dilute his interest in the venture, Zuckerberg sent an email to Ceglia on February 2,2004, that read:

Paul, I have a rather serious issue to discuss with you, according toour contract I owe you over 30% more of the business in late penalties which would give you over 80% of the company.

First I want to say that I think that is completely unfair because I did so much extra work for you on your site that caused those delays in-12-the first place and second I don’t even think it is legal to charge such a huge penalty.

Mostly though I just won’t even bother putting the site live if you are going to insist on such a large percentage.

I’d like to suggest that you drop the penalty completelyand that we officially return to 50/50 ownership. [Emphasis added.]

46.

On February 3, 2004, Ceglia responded:OK fine Mark 50/50 just as long as we start making some moneyfrom this thing. I’m looking forward to hearing how it goes but Iam so busy right now with a few other projects that my time isvery thin .. Let’s get it live and open up the store.

Have you had achance to inquire about getting a merchandizing license? We reallywill need that soon so we can start bringing in some money,everyone buys t shirts and mugs, especially the parents .. theydeserve bragging rights at home with the tuition they have to pay.Also what about putting in something like a Christian corner? I’veonly been to Harvard a few times but the idea of being able to findother Christians online without having to do the un PC thing ofasking someone face to face sounds to me like it would have somereal value, if only the spiritual kind. :-) and the other thing is linksto hotlines, why couldnt (sic) we have the rape crisis hotline, thesuicide hotline, drug rehab and so on right there so when someonereally needs something they could link over to the site theywanted? Same thing for local pizza and chinese (sic) or whatever,that way it could really be a resource that a person could use.

47.

After finally learning that Ceglia would waive the provision in the Agreement fordelivering The Face Book website late, Zuckerberg then informed Ceglia on February 4, 2004that the website was live: “Paul, [¶] ‘thefacebook.com’ opened for students today, when you geta chance take a look at it. I’ll let you know how it goes.”

48.

Ceglia responded on February 4, 2004:Congrats Mark! The site looks great, Just wondering if we mightthink of another title for it without the the, but plenty of time forthat, I’ll try and think of some names, I looked for weeks to finallyfind streetfax.com and that is how I named it, backwards from theavailability, (sic) I’m sure you checked to see if just facebook.comwas available? you (sic) know another thing i’ve (sic) beenthinking of that I perfected in Streetfax is going city to city, (sic) Ifyou went city to cityh (sic) with this I think it would be far easier-13-than just trying to open it up to all ivy league (sic) schools at once,actually get on the ground in each place, we send a half dozen guysinto the city on bikes and within a few weeks we have photos ofevery intersection in the place, so the same thing could be doneonlyh (sic) putting up flyers to promote the site, just brainstormingsome ideas on how we can start making some money.

49.

On February 6, 2004, Zuckerberg then writes to Ceglia:Sorry it’s taken me a few days to respond, (sic) Now that the sites(sic) live I feel I must take creative control and I just can not riskinjuring my sites (sic) reputation by cheapening it with your ideaof selling college junk, nor do I wish to spend my time shippingout coffee mugs to rich alumni. The site is cool as it is and I don’tcare about making any money on it right now, I just want to see ifpeople will use it. If I had the rest of the money I was owed by youfor all that extra work I did I wouldn’t even need to make money atall on this site. That is money I am entitled to and is rightfullymine.

50.

Taken aback by Zuckerberg’s February 6 email, Ceglia responded on February 7,2004:

Mark, all I can think is your parents have handed you everythingyour entire life and after all this time and energy and MONEY thatyou think in your head that an Ok way to act is to just say- oh I’vechanged my mind I don’t think it’s cool to make money and thatthat should be that.

Then you have the nerve to suggest that Ishould pay you more money if I get you right, so that you dont(sic) have to try to make money on the site we’ve built?? It’s onething to say you don’t want to sell coffee mugs but I don’t see whysince the margins are excellent and with minimal effort we couldgenerate some decent revenue for us while keeping the site free tostudents.

It’s one thing to say “I’d like to discuss with you otherways we could produce revenue for the site, like advertising, wecould sell ads locally I am sure and to places that already sellalumni stuff (but we will be losing the margins) angel investors are just con men and until we have some decent revenue we aren’tgoing to get a dime from them without giving up the whole thingand anyway at this point it’s just a freaking harvard (sic) thing.

I need to be able to get on the actual site and see where we can placesome ads and we need to get some bike couriers to go aroundpromoting the site so we can get some people using it FIRST!

But we need to get some advertising on the site right away if you likethat route better so alumni are used to seeing some ads from thebeginning. Isn’t there a way to count how many people click to-14-their site from ours?

51.

On April 6, 2004, Zuckerberg wrote Ceglia an email, representing to him that heis considering abandoning The Face Book website, claiming he was too busy to work on it andthere was a lack of interest in it among students:

Paul, I have become too busy to deal with the site and no onewants to pay for it, so I am thinking of just taking the server down.My parents have a fund that I can tap into for my college expensesand I would just like to give you your two thousand dollars backand call it even on the rest of the money you owe me for the extrawork. At this point I won’t even really be able to work on thefacebook until Summer.

52.

Ceglia responded almost immediately:You’ve got some nerve talking about me owing you with theCRIMINAL stunts you’ve pulled (sic) Reasonable people go tocourt to resolve their differences they don’t go stealing thingsdude, you stole code, not once, not twice but THREE TIMES! Doyou have any idea the damage you’ve done??? Grow up, take afucking ethics class, choke yourself with that silver spoon of yours.

53.

The “CRIMINAL stunts” and other activities referred to in Ceglia’s April 6, 2004email involved Zuckerberg’s efforts to sabotage the StreetFax.com website on multiple occasionsby hacking into it and altering the code, causing it to shutdown. Zuckerberg did that becauseCeglia refused to pay Zuckerberg more than what they agreed for the work Zuckerberg had doneon the StreetFax.com website.

54.

Contrary to Zuckerberg’s representations to Ceglia, and unknown to Ceglia,thefacebook.com website was an immediate success and well received by the students atHarvard. In fact, the website was so well received that other Harvard students and otherindividuals expressed an interest in investing in the website and participating in its development.Beginning with Zuckerberg’s February 6, 2004 email to Ceglia, Zuckerberg was intentionallyattempting to sour their business relationship in order to convince Ceglia to abandon it.-15-

55.

On July 22, 2004, Zuckerberg wrote to Ceglia an email, that read:Paul,I am guessing that you don’t want to talk to me but I wanted to sayhappy birthday and that I hope to resolve our differences. I see thatwhat I did was wrong and I am really sorry that I behaved as I did.Please give me your address and I will mail you back the $2000 foryour trouble, more if it will repair our business relationship.Another summer is here and I still don’t have any time to build oursite, I understand that I promised I would, but other things havecome up and I am out in California working during break. I justdon’t want the obligation of having to answer to you for notfollowing through and I won’t be able to.Best,Mark

56.

At the time Zuckerberg wrote his July 22, 2004 email, he had received or wasabout to receive funding from angel investors and was in the process of meeting with venturecapital funds to provide additional capital. At no time did Zuckerberg inform Ceglia of thesefacts.

57.

On July 29, 2004, Zuckerberg either incorporated or participated in theincorporation of an entity under the laws of the State of Delaware now known as Facebook, Inc.Zuckerberg misappropriated the General Partnership’s (1) opportunity to expand the website andthe Face Book project beyond Harvard University students and (2) assets, and contributed themto Facebook, Inc., but never informed Ceglia or accounted for them to the General Partnership orCeglia. To the contrary, Zuckerberg misrepresented to Ceglia that he was not continuing to workon further development of The Face Book, further expanding of The Face Book to a largeraudience or commercializing The Face Book for profit. In exchange for contributing the GeneralPartnership’s assets to Facebook, Inc. and in taking the General Partnership’s opportunity forhimself, Zuckerberg received and/or was promised to later receive cash, stock, stock options,restricted stock units and/or other consideration.-16-

58.

Ceglia never accepted a repayment of investment in The Face Book project andnever relinquished his 50% interest in the General Partnership.FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF(Declaratory Relief Against Zuckerberg)

59.

Ceglia realleges paragraphs 1 through 58, inclusive, and by this referenceincorporates the same as though fully set forth herein.

60.

Ceglia contends that:a. The Agreement, together with the course of conduct between Zuckerbergand Ceglia after the execution of the Agreement, as matter of law, created a General Partnershipunder New York Partnership law, of which Ceglia was a 50% owner;b. Pursuant to New York Partnership Law § 10(a), “A partnership is anassociation of two or more persons to carry on as co-owners a business for profit;”c. The respective contributions of Ceglia and Zuckerberg became, and wouldbecome, property of the General Partnership; andd. The fruits of those contributions — such as the creation of the software,program, the purchase and design of a suitable website, thefacebook.com, and business interestsderived from the expansion of that service or website to a larger audience — also becameproperty of the General Partnership.

61.

Ceglia is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Zuckerberg disputes theforegoing contentions.

62.

Consequently, an actual controversy and dispute exists between Ceglia andZuckerberg concerning the formation, operation and assets of the General Partnership.

63.

All necessary parties are before the Court so that it can grant declaratory relief.-17-

64.

Therefore, Ceglia is entitled to declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and2202.

65.

As a result of the foregoing dispute, a judicial determination of the parties’ rightsand obligations is necessary.SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF(Breach of Fiduciary Against Zuckerberg)

66.

Ceglia realleges paragraphs 1 through 65, inclusive, and by this referenceincorporates the same as though fully set forth herein.

67.

As alleged above, starting in approximately April 2004 through July 2004,Zuckerberg misrepresented to Ceglia that thefacebook.com was not successful, that he was toobusy to deal with the website, that he had lost interest in the website and that he was shutting thewebsite down.

68.

Ceglia relied on the foregoing misrepresentations in that after July 2004, he hadno reason to follow up on whether the website and the business interests of the GeneralPartnership was a success or failure or to determine whether Zuckerberg was continuing with theactivities of the General Partnership.

69.

On or around July 29, 2004, having lulled Ceglia into believing the GeneralPartnership would go nowhere, Zuckerberg misappropriated the opportunity of the GeneralPartnership to expand the website and The Face Book project beyond Harvard Universitystudents and the assets of the General Partnership and contributed those assets to Facebook, Inc.and took the partnership opportunity for himself. Zuckerberg also concealed his contribution ofthe General Partnership’s assets to Facebook, Inc., and the existence of Facebook, Inc., fromCeglia. Zuckerberg did so for his own personal gain.-18-

70.

In taking the actions described above, Zuckerberg breached his fiduciary duties ofcandor, loyalty and good faith.

71.

As a result of Zuckerberg’s breach of fiduciary duty, all consideration received byhim or was promised to him in exchange for the General Partnership’s assets, including, but notlimited to, cash, stock, stock options, restricted stock units and/or any other consideration, werereceived, and continue to be held, by him in constructive trust for the benefit of the GeneralPartnership and Ceglia as a 50% owner of the General Partnership.THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF(Constructive Fraud Against Zuckerberg)

72.

Ceglia realleges paragraphs 1 through 71, inclusive, and by this referenceincorporates the same as though fully set forth herein.

73.

As alleged above, starting in approximately April 2004 through July 2004,Zuckerberg knowingly misrepresented to Ceglia that thefacebook.com was not successful, thathe was too busy to deal with the website, that he had lost interest in the website and that he wasshutting the website down.

74.

Ceglia relied on the foregoing misrepresentations in that after July 2004, he hadno reason to follow up on whether the website and the business interests of the GeneralPartnership was a success or failure or to determine whether Zuckerberg was continuing with theactivities of the General Partnership.

75.

On or around July 29, 2004, having lulled Ceglia into believing the GeneralPartnership would go nowhere, Zuckerberg misappropriated the opportunity of the GeneralPartnership to expand the website and The Face Book project beyond Harvard Universitystudents and the assets of the General Partnership and contributed those assets to Facebook, Inc.and took the partnership opportunity for himself. Zuckerberg also knowingly concealed his-19-contribution of the General Partnership’s assets to Facebook, Inc., and the existence ofFacebook, Inc., from Ceglia despite his duty to disclose such information to Ceglia. Zuckerbergdid so for his own personal gain.

76.

Zuckerberg’s actions described above constitute constructive fraud.

77.

As a result of Zuckerberg’s constructive fraud, as a member of the GeneralPartnership, Ceglia has been deprived of his 50% interest in all consideration received byZuckerberg or promised to Zuckerberg in exchange for the General Partnership’s assets,including, but not limited to, cash, stock, stock options, restricted stock units and/or any otherconsideration.

78.

As a result of Zuckerberg’s constructive fraud, all consideration received by himor was promised to him in exchange for the General Partnership’s assets, including, but notlimited to, cash, stock, stock options, restricted stock units and/or any other consideration, werereceived, and continue to be held, by him in constructive trust for the benefit of the GeneralPartnership and Ceglia as a 50% owner of the General Partnership.

79.

As a further result of Zuckerberg’s actions, Ceglia has suffered actual damages inan amount to be determined at trial.FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF(Actual Fraud Against Zuckerberg)

80.

Ceglia realleges paragraphs 1 through 79, inclusive, and by this referenceincorporates the same as though fully set forth herein.

81.

As alleged above, starting in approximately April 2004 through July 2004,Zuckerberg knowingly misrepresented to Ceglia that thefacebook.com was not successful, thathe was too busy to deal with the website, that he had lost interest in the website and that he wasshutting the website down.-20-

82.

Ceglia relied on the foregoing misrepresentations in that after July 2004, he hadno reason to follow up on whether the website and the business interests of the GeneralPartnership was a success or failure or to determine whether Zuckerberg was continuing with theactivities of the General Partnership.

83.

On or around July 29, 2004, having lulled Ceglia into believing the GeneralPartnership would go nowhere, Zuckerberg misappropriated the opportunity of the GeneralPartnership to expand the website and The Face Book project beyond Harvard Universitystudents and the assets of the General Partnership and contributed those assets to Facebook, Inc.and took the partnership opportunity for himself. Zuckerberg also knowingly concealed hiscontribution of the General Partnership’s assets to Facebook, Inc., and the existence of Facebook, Inc., from Ceglia despite his duty to disclose such information to Ceglia. Zuckerbergdid so for his own personal gain.

84.

Zuckerberg’s actions described above constitute actual fraud.

85.

As a result of Zuckerberg’s fraud, as a member of the General Partnership, Cegliahas been deprived of his 50% interest in all consideration received by Zuckerberg or promised to Zuckerberg in exchange for the General Partnership’s assets, including, but not limited to, cash,stock, stock options, restricted stock units and/or any other consideration.

86.

As a further result of Zuckerberg’s actions, Ceglia has suffered actual damages inan amount to be determined at trial.FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF(Declaratory Relief Against Zuckerberg and Facebook, Inc.)

87.

Ceglia realleges paragraphs 1 through 86, inclusive, and by this referenceincorporates the same as though fully set forth herein.

88.

Ceglia contends that:-21-a. Zuckerberg misappropriated the opportunities and the assets, includingbusiness interests, of the General Partnership for himself;b. Zuckerberg contributed the misappropriated assets of the GeneralPartnership to Facebook, Inc. and took the General Partnership’s opportunity for himself;c. In exchange for the misappropriated assets of the General Partnership that Zuckerberg contributed to Facebook, Inc., Zuckerberg received and was promised to receivecash, stock, stock options, restricted stock units and/or other consideration;d. The cash, stock, stock options, restricted stock units and/or otherconsideration property received by or promised to Zuckerberg in exchange for themisappropriated assets were, and are, the property of the General Partnership; ande. By virtue of his 50% ownership interest in the General Partnership, Cegliais entitled to receive 50% of the total equity interest in Facebook, Inc. received by, and promisedto Zuckerberg, including, but not limited to, stock, stock options and restricted stock units.

89.

Ceglia is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Zuckerberg andFacebook, Inc. dispute the foregoing contentions.

90.

Consequently, an actual controversy and dispute exists between Ceglia andZuckerberg and Facebook, Inc. concerning the foregoing.

91.

All necessary parties are before the Court so that it can grant declaratory relief.

92.

Therefore, Ceglia is entitled to declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and2202.

93.

As a result of the foregoing dispute, a judicial determination of the parties’ rightsand obligations is necessary.-22-SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF(Breach of Contract Against Zuckerberg)

94.

Ceglia realleges paragraphs 1 through 93, inclusive, and by this referenceincorporates the same as though fully set forth herein.

95.

The Agreement constituted a valid contract between Ceglia and Zuckerberg.

96.

Ceglia has performed all conditions and covenants required of him under theAgreement and was not, and is not, in breach of any terms of the Agreement.

97.

Zuckerberg breached the Agreement on or about July 29, 2004, when heincorporated or participated in the incorporation of Facebook, Inc. and failed to provide Ceglia50% of the capital stock of Facebook, Inc.

98.

As a result of Zuckerberg’s breach of contract, Ceglia has suffered damages in anamount to be proven at trial.SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF(Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Against Zuckerberg)

99.

Ceglia realleges paragraphs 1 through 98, inclusive, and by this referenceincorporates the same as though fully set forth herein.

100.

The Agreement constituted a valid contract between Ceglia and Zuckerberg.

101.

Ceglia has performed all conditions and covenants required of him under theAgreement and was not, and is not, in breach of any terms of the Agreement.

102.

Zuckerberg breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing arisingfrom the Agreement on or about July 29, 2004, when he incorporated or participated in theincorporation of Facebook, Inc. and failed to provide Ceglia 50% of the capital stock ofFacebook, Inc.-23-

103.

As a result of Zuckerberg’s breach of contract, Ceglia has suffered damages in anamount to be proven at trial.WHEREFORE, Plaintiff PAUL D. CEGLIA, prays for the following relief:

A. For the First Claim for Relief1. A declaration that:a. The Agreement, together with the course of conduct between Zuckerbergand Ceglia after the execution of the Agreement, as matter of law, created a general partnershipof which Ceglia was a 50% owner;

b. The respective contributions of Ceglia and Zuckerberg became, and wouldbecome, property of the General Partnership; and

c. The fruits of those contributions — such as the creation of the software,program, the purchase and design of a suitable website, thefacebook.com, and business interests derived from the expansion of that service or website to a larger audience — also became property of the General Partnership.

B.

For the Second, Third and Fourth Claims for Relief

2. An accounting of all consideration received by Zuckerberg or was promised tohim in exchange for the General Partnership’s opportunities and assets, including, but not limitedto, cash, stock, stock options, restricted stock units and/or any other consideration, and inproperty or other interests into which the foregoing has been transmuted.

3. The imposition of a constructive trust for the benefit of the General Partnershipand Ceglia as a 50% owner of the General Partnership on all consideration received by Zuckerberg or was promised to him in exchange for the General Partnership’s assets, including,-24-but not limited to, cash, stock, stock options, restricted stock units and/or any otherconsideration, and in property or other interests into which the foregoing has been transmuted.

4. Damages according to proof.5. Putative and exemplary damages.C. For the Fifth Claim for Relief6. A declaration that:

a. Zuckerberg misappropriated the opportunities and the assets, includingbusiness interests, of the General Partnership for himself;

b. Zuckerberg contributed the misappropriated assets of the GeneralPartnership to Facebook, Inc. and took the General Partnership’s opportunity for himself;

c. In exchange for the misappropriated assets of the General Partnership that Zuckerberg contributed to Facebook, Inc., Zuckerberg received and was promised to receive cash, stock, stock options, restricted stock units and/or other consideration;

d. The cash, stock, stock options, restricted stock units and/or otherconsideration property received by or promised to Zuckerberg in exchange for themisappropriated assets were, and are, the property of the General Partnership; and

e. By virtue of his 50% ownership interest in the General Partnership, Cegliais entitled to receive 50% of the total equity interest in Facebook, Inc. received by, and promisedto Zuckerberg, including, but not limited to, stock, stock options and restricted stock units.

D. For the Sixth and Seventh Claims for Relief

7. Damages according to proof.E. For All Claims for Relief

8. All recoverable court costs and fees.-25-

9. Attorneys’ fees, expenses and costs, including expert witness fees, to the extentavailable by law or contract.

10. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff demands trial by jury on all issues so triable.

Dated:

New York, New York.

April 11, 2011

Respectfully submitted, DLA PIPER LLP (US) John Allcock (seeking admission)

Robert W. Brownlie (seeking admission)

Gerard A. Trippitelli (seeking admission)

By: /s/Christopher P. (Kip) HallChristopher P. (Kip) Hallkip.hall@dlapiper.com

Carrie S. Parikhcarrie.parikh@dlapiper.com

1251 Avenue of the Americas, 27th FloorNew York, NY 10020-1104

212.335.4500

Attorneys for Plaintif fPAUL D. CEGLIA

Paul Argentieri (co-counsel) paul.argentieri@gmail.com

188 Main St. Hornell, NY 14843 607.324.3232

Dennis C. Vacco (co-counsel) dvacco@lippes.com

Kevin J. Cross (co-counsel) kcross@lippes.com 665 Main Street, Suite 300 Buffalo, NY 14203 716.853.5100

EAST\44501966.2

I’ve spent the last couple of days tweaking my other blog – TabletCrunch.com – into a blog that serves a dual role as a traditional blog and now also a Facebook app.

You know those Facebook apps, right?  Apps like CityVille, FarmVille, MafiaWars, etc…

Well, Tablet Crunch is now both a blog and a Facebook app.

The HUGE benefit of having an app on Facebook – well, actually there are quite a few benefits – but one of the major benefits is the ability to expand your traffic base and drive new, high quality, and highly social traffic to your blog.

And because this traffic is streaming to your site via the Facebook app, which is your site running within an iFrame on Facebook, you benefit from Facebook’s highly efficient servers.  This means, your site can get huge spikes in traffic via Facebook, and your site will be chugging right along, deliver every page view efficiently to your viewers.

How to make your WordPress blog a Facebook app:

First of all, to transform your blog, or any site for that matter, into a Facebook app, you need to know certain parameters.

The magic number – or the magic parameter that is far more important than all others – is the “760px width” parameter.

Facebook apps can only run at a maximum of 760px wide.

So what I did with TabletCrunch is I basically deleted the current theme I was using, which was basically a custom theme I’ve been hacking at for the past 6 months, and rebuilt the theme from ground to fit the 760px wide parameter.

The entire site is now optimized to run at 760px wide – the sidebars, my Adsense ads, the main content, navigation, header… everything.

Take a look at TabletCrunch here as it looks live on the web – here’s a screenshot for you as well:

Now check out the TabletCrunch Facebook app here (again, a screenshot for you as well):

The customization of your WordPress requires you to do a lot more than just adjust the container width to 760px.

Some other major points of concern and adjust to consider when converting your WordPress blog into a Facebook app are:

• navigation bar width and font adjustments
• Facebook app scroll bar code to remove / optimize the scroll bar
• sidebar adjustments to width and height
• Adsense adjustments to the ad sizes you integrate
• Re-thinking the placement, size, and type of plugins
• Keeping your site “reader friendly” outside of Facebook
• Favicons

Let me stop here to make a point about the favicon and it’s relevance in your Facebook app.

Whatever you use as a favicon (the small 16×16 image that you see in your browser tab and in the address bar for your blog), this will be the same image that is used to identify your app in user’s profiles.

This is a really big deal, and one of the ways that your Facebook app – which is your blog running within the Facebook graph – will get a lot of repeat visitors from Facebook.

The way apps are displayed now in Facebook user’s profiles is on the left hand side of your home screen.  Check it out – login to Facebook > click “Home” in the upper right hand corner > now look along the left hand side of your profile you should see a list of apps.

The apps are typically listed (or ranked) according to your level of use.  Meaning, the you engage a particular app, the higher it will eventually climb in your list of apps.

So basically, the most used apps work their way to the top.

The huge benefit here to having your WordPress blog running simultaneously as a Facebook app is the more people visit your blog on Facebook, the higher that little favicon image, along with your blog’s (or Facebook app) title will rank on user’s profiles.

I know that for me, that apps I use the most are always present to me when I’m on Facebook.

Imagine now if your blog was one of those apps – I’d be returning to it constantly throughout the day, simply because I see it constantly while logged in to Facebook.

With your blog just sitting out there on the web, I’m a lot less likely to remember to go visit it – on Facebook, as it’s own application, it will be presented to me continuously while I’m using Facebook.

I’ll be writing more “step – by step how to’s” shortly on how to make this happen, so stay tuned.

Until then, what do you think about the idea of building / converting WordPress blogs (or even your website, other blogs, etc…) to play an additional role of serving as a Facebook application?

Pretty much any site that is optimized for the proper width and height can be converted into a Facebook application.

Thoughts?

If you are interested in the growing discussion around the issue of Facebook bullying and the impact it’s having on kids and our society as a whole, then you don’t want to miss this “Facebook Live” event that’s coming up tomorrow (Thursday), at 12:00pm EST live from the White House.

The event is being called The White House Conference on Bullying Prevention, and it will discuss the growing concern around the issue of online bullying, specifically the growing concern of this on Facebook.

The live event will also talk about how you and I, the people who make up the Facebook, can work together to make Facebook and the Internet a safer, richer environment for everyone.

The White Conference on Bullying Prevention is all about building a strong digital citizenship through awareness, knowledge, and understanding the points around this issue.  And it will challenge all of us to take greater responsibility and ownership of our own actions, and act toward to the benefit of others online.

Featured Guests:

• Facebook Chief Security Officer Joe Sullivan: Joe, a former federal prosecutor and founding member of the Justice Department’s Computer Hacking and Intellectual Property Units, oversees safety and security for Facebook’s more than 500 million active users.

• Rosalind Wiseman: Rosalind is an internationally recognized expert on teens, parenting and bullying. Her book Queen Bees and Wannabes, was the basis for the movie Mean Girls, and her follow-up book, Queen Bee Moms and Kingpin Dads, addresses the social hierarchies and conflicts among parents.

• MTV Vice President of Public Affairs Jason Rzepka: Jason is responsible for marshaling the network’s forces to engage and activate America’s youth on the biggest challenges facing their generation.

The show will be moderated by Kalpen Modi, Associate Director for the White House Office of Public Engagement.

Watch and ask questions of our panelists at 12:20 p.m. ET on March 10 from any of the following pages:

Ask questions in advance by commenting on the wall of this event or emailing facebookdclive@fb.com.

via Facebook Live

I’ve written previously about How To Get Email Notifications for your Facebook Fan Pages, but this was sort of a hacked work around that worked, but was  bit cumbersome to stay up with.

Ironically, that post has been ranking between 1 and 3 in Google since mid-year 2010 for “facebook fan page email notifications“, and I’ve gotten a lot of feedback, insights, insults, etc… from people all over the world talking to me about the method I describe.

Luckily for you and I, there is a new “OFFICIAL” way to receive email notifications when someone comments on your Facebook Fan Page.

This does need to be setup in your Facebook account work properly, but I can testify to the effectiveness of the notifications because I’ve been getting emails of new comments pretty consistently since two days ago when I set it up.

Here’s how to setup your official email notifications for your Facebook Fan Pages

Let me make one quick note before the step – by – step… you’ll notice that you can also set up to receive email notifications for all of the pages you “admin” – which is a really great feature!

1) First you need to click “Account” in the upper right in corner of Facebook (you must be logged in)

2) Now you’ll see a drop down menu > go ahead and click “Account Settings”

3) Find the tab called “Notifications” and click that

4) The fourth section down is called “Pages” > you need to check the box called “Replies to your discussion board post” – this will allow you to receive email notifications for responses from people reacting to your comments

5) Next find the link at the bottom of the “Pages” section that says “Change email settings for individual Pages”

6) Finally, go through the list of Facebook Pages and check the box next to the Page you want to receive email notifications for. You can check them all, or hand pick the ones you want to actually show up in your inbox > now just click “Save” and you’re done.

Let me know if you have any questions in the comments below, or call 706-363-0335 (Robert).