Facebook Faces the Canadian Privacy Commissioner 140
dakohli writes "Canwest's Sarah Schmidt writes that Facebook has until Monday to find a way to fix its 'serious privacy gaps.' And if the Canadian Privacy Commissioner isn't happy with the Web Company's response, then she has two weeks to push it to the Canadian Federal Court in Ottawa. 'A spokeswoman for the commission said it's premature to say whether the feud will end up in court. This would be an international first for Facebook, which has grown to more than 200 million users since its launch in 2004.'"
Re:Just add to the EULA... (Score:5, Informative)
The Privacy Commissioner is an officer of parliament (who reports directly to the Senate and the House of Commons), not an official of the Government of Canada.
Re:Just add to the EULA... (Score:3, Informative)
I can see it as being reasonable in some cases. One of the most common is with contests and giveaways, which essentially means, "if contests with cash prizes such as this one aren't allowed where you live, then you can't enter this contest, obviously".
Re:Canwest, eh... (Score:3, Informative)
Take anything and everything that Canwest reports with several large grains of salt. This is a media company that forbids the editors of their local newspapers from writing their own articles. At Canwest all opinions must come from head office.
Why do I need opinions from the news?
Re:Canada? Does it matter? (Score:1, Informative)
...Facebook, which has grown to more than 200 million users... from summery
10.6 million according to Facebook.
http://themeaningofweb.com/facebook-user-profile-canada-2008/ [themeaningofweb.com]
So yes. That's a lot of advertising revenues.
200 million / 10.6 million is a little over 5%
Re:Canwest, eh... (Score:3, Informative)
Why should news publications not offer any editorials or analysis... as they've been doing for centuries? Raw data in and of itself is not particularly useful.
And why was this modded Informative when in fact it's just the opposite?
Re:Just add to the EULA... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Keeping your information private on Facebook... (Score:2, Informative)
X only gets update about Y(who he doesn't knows) photos if one of the first two is selected (must people chose the first).
Re:Finally (Score:3, Informative)
vs
The corporate charter that companies such as Facebook are granted.
Corporate charters historically were granted very rarely and can be revoked (still). The legal prop that gives so many ball-busting industrial monoliths the power to trample governments, and citizens is that an incorporated company has become a weird person/non-person hybrid. This relentless legal craftwork [youtube.com] is an intentional product designed to protect the corporate entity. People were afraid of Artificial Intelligence taking over, but the real threat is the mindless, ruthless, psychopathic corporate hive and the lawyer/accountant fraternity that Buckminister Fuller described very well in "Critical Path" [amazon.ca] in chapter 3 "Legally Piggily".
Re:Just add to the EULA... (Score:4, Informative)
Someone who reports directly to the house and senate is beholden to them. This means committees not individual people like normal bureaucrats, which means there is a much higher level of standard regarding issues when push comes to shove in a body like this. The privacy commissioner is not a regulatory agency like the CRTC, it's an actual oversight board and committee meant to safeguard the privacy of the citizens of Canada.
Re:Canada? Does it matter? (Score:3, Informative)
Unless you're amazing enough to actually show up on a CSIS or RCMP watch list, then you're not getting your information shared with other governments. If you're at that point already, then there's a national security issue for nations which you're friendly with. Figure that one out yet?
So here's a big surprise, personal information of 10m citizens that are silly enough to post it is actually a rather big issue. And not to forget that the privacy act does exist for a reason, but I'm sure you've already read it and know what it means like most people who have a passing interest in law. Because if you didn't, you wouldn't understand the first part I posted.
Re:Just add to the EULA... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Question: Why should Facebook care? (Score:3, Informative)
Last I checked, Facebook was a US company with no presence in Canada.
When was the last time you checked, exactly [facebook.ca]? And, yes, owning a .ca domain means they have a Canadian presence.
Re:Just add to the EULA... (Score:2, Informative)
A. Create a new holding company in a different country (say USA or somewhere with desirable local laws) - transfer said .ca domain to new holding company. B. Change the main page to "This Site no longer exists. Try going to whatevermysiteis.COM" C. Tell offending government to go pound sand.
CIRA won't allow said holding company to take ownership of the domain unless said holding company has a Canadian presence. With .ca domains, they can't be under the control of anyone who isn't operating within Canada, for the most part.
Re:Just add to the EULA... (Score:3, Informative)
I see what you're saying, but really, if I set up a website that is called SpeakingFrenchSucks.ca just to bash the French language, is that operating in Canada?
No, you've got it entirely backwards.
You *can't* register SpeakingFrenchSucks.ca *unless* you are "operating in Canada", as per the rules as set out by CIRA.
Re:Just add to the EULA... (Score:3, Informative)
I think, correct me if I am wrong, what you're saying is, by registering this domain, I agree to be bound by the CIRA?
Correct. Specifically, by registering a .ca domain, you are bound by CIRA's Registrant Agreement [www.cira.ca], which, among other things, includes the Canadian Presence Requirements [www.cira.ca]. Violating those requirements will result in the cancellation of your domain name registration (assuming you're caught, of course... odds are Facebook would be).
Re:Just add to the EULA... (Score:2, Informative)