Senators Tell Facebook To Quit Sharing Users' Info 256
Posted
by
kdawson
from the in-your-heart-you-know-it's-wrong dept.
from the in-your-heart-you-know-it's-wrong dept.
Hugh Pickens notes a USA Today story reporting that two US senators have joined Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) in telling Facebook to quit sharing more of its users' data than they signed up for. Politico.com ups USA Today's ante, saying that it was
three more senators, not two more, who
joined Schumer's call: Michael Bennet (D-CO), Mark Begich (D-AK), and Al Franken (D-MN). The senators are asking the FTC to look at Facebook's controversial new information-sharing policies, arguing that the massively popular social network overstepped its bounds when it began sharing user data with other websites. Sen. Schumer said he learned about the new rules from his daughter, who is in law school, but added that he's noticed no difference on his own Facebook page, which, he assured reporters, "is very boring." "I can attest to that," deadpanned Franken, who made his living as a comedian before entering the Senate, and whose Facebook followers outnumber Schumer's by ten to one.
Facebook is shit. (Score:1, Insightful)
See subject.
Allow us to "opt-in" (Score:4, Insightful)
I am tired of companies changing the rules but saying you can opt-out. How about we get to "opt-in" if we want Facebook to share our data with 3rd party websites??
I am willing to share certain information with just my Facebook friends, but I don't want it shared with every website on the Internet. Sheesh.
As Jon Stewart says... (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps Senator Franken thinks the same thing?
Re:It's kind of sad... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Problem (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem is that most of the Facebook users didn't closed their account when it happened.
Don't senators have a better way... (Score:1, Insightful)
...to do this...like, I don't know, pass a law or something?
Re:Free economy, regulate fraud (Score:3, Insightful)
Or
If you don't like the license agreement and the fact that it can be changed at any time, STOP USING FACEBOOK or any other site with a similar agreement. The problem isn't the agreement. The problem is that people don't care. Nobody has to use Facebook or any other social networking site. If you don't like their TOS, don't use their service. It's that simple.
Re:It's kind of sad... (Score:5, Insightful)
In many ways I'm still a Hubert Humphrey Democrat -- someone who believes in afflicting the comfortable and comforting the afflicted. A society is judged by how it treats the elderly, the sick, the impoverished. To me it's a matter of ethics and compassion. -Al Franken
We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. -Ann Coulter
Yeah, about that political discourse...
Re:WTF?! (Score:2, Insightful)
It is the point of Facebook to share user information, but it is also the point that you get to control with WHOM you share that information. I personally have my account locked down to just my friends.
For example, I don't mind sharing photos of my kids with my friends, but I don't want every pedophile on the Internet to have access to those pictures. I may post that I am enjoying San Juan, but I don't want criminals to have access to that information. Do you see the difference? It's about having control over who sees what.
Facebook, on the other hand, keeps making moves to automatically share more of your personal information with people without your consent (i.e. you have to opt-out AFTER the fact instead of being able to opt-in). This is disgusting and is NOT simply a facet of a social networking site. If Facebook had simply shared all information with everyone from the start, I seriously doubt many of us would have used it in the first place. But they now decide they can do that after the fact at their discretion.
Re:It's kind of sad... (Score:4, Insightful)
Um, the same could be said for a certain actor [wikipedia.org] who became president, or singer [wikipedia.org] who became a congressman, or village idiot [wikipedia.org] that became president...
Re:Free economy, regulate fraud (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry bud, but here in the USA, we (rightly) have identified that sort of bullshit as unacceptable.
If you don't like their TOS, don't use their service. It's that simple.
It is NOT that simple. I cannot run a photocopying business with a TOS that states that I am entitled to sell your personal information to identity theft rings.
You might argue "if you don't like it, don't use them and they'll go out of business." Unfortunately, some people might not notice that part of the agreement, or perhaps they were in a hurry and didn't realize it included that clause.
This is why we make LAWS. People, on the whole, agree that certain types of bullshit are unacceptable and we aren't going to allow it.
It's PARTICULARLY upsetting when they seem to think they can obtain your data under the terms of one agreement, and then CONTINUE to keep said data (and profit from it) after they change the agreement without notifying you or obtaining your permission.
Exactly how long do you think it would take a bank to get the shit slapped out of them by the government for following this sort of course of action?
They take your money under an agreement, and they are REQUIRED by federal regulation to notify you of any changes to your agreement. If they fail to do so, they are subject to some serious legal shit-fan-hitting.
Facebook, along with EVERY OTHER COMPANY in the US, online or otherwise, should be required to notify the other person in the event of a PROPOSED change in agreement.
If the person doesn't like the agreement, they should be allowed to collect their data (similar to collecting your money from the bank) and then any and all traces of that data should be required to be destroyed.
Why? Because to many people, their personal data is worth more than the money they have in the bank.
Legislation isn't the answer to many problems, but it IS the answer to stopping a lot of the corporate bullshit that goes on in this country.
If anything, we need more laws/regulations to govern corporations, and less to govern individuals.
An unrestrained, unregulated free market fails just as readily as one that's under complete governmental control.
Re:WTF?! (Score:5, Insightful)
One of Facebook's defining characteristics when it was first created is that you had tight control over who saw your information. Supposedly it was restricted to your friends or people in your network. This is very different than what it is becoming, which shares information with everyone and anyone.
Re:It's kind of sad... (Score:5, Insightful)
Having government take care of the needy absolves us of the moral responsibility to give a damn anymore. We can get our warm fuzzies by pulling a lever instead of putting in our own time and effort to improve the human condition.
"without making us agree to them again. " (Score:3, Insightful)
The only way to win the game is not to play to begin with. Wargame got it right, only it applies to nearly all service and goods on the net.
Re:Problem (Score:5, Insightful)
And in every case, it's not worth the bits it is printed on.
Terms of a contract cannot be changed at-will by a single party. There cannot legally be a meeting of the minds if one party is not aware of the updated terms. Facebook provided no notice that their terms of service were changing and offered no opportunity to preemptively decline the new terms. As such, Facebook's new terms of service are prima facie invalid. There is no possibility whatsoever that a court would side with Facebook on this one if it ever went to court. Companies that place such terms in their contracts either A. require you to agree to the new terms on next login (which Facebook usually does not), or B. are hoping the public never notice (which Facebook apparently does).
Thus, these contract terms are already completely bogus. What we really need are laws that provide for the following:
It's not enough for the contract terms to be invalid. They're already invalid now and companies still pull this crap. We need laws with actual teeth that punish companies who deliberately abuse contract law.
In the case of Facebook right now, the only real question is whether their new terms constitute a breach of their old terms and invalidate any rights they have to users' data or not. I suspect that depends more on the mood of the judge, should this ever go to court. Facebook is in a rather untenable legal position, IMHO, and their legal team should be canned en masse.
Re:turnabout? (Score:5, Insightful)
And you expect most Facebook users to discern that difference?
No, most users are apparently clueless and stupid and government regulation is required to protect them since they won't do it themselves.
The people who would argue with that are probably the same people who think that a democratically-elected group of legislators passing a bill which the majority agreed with means that we're living under a tyranny. Possibly even the same people who don't understand the difference between socialism, communism, fascism, and the Nazis.
Re:It's kind of sad... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Free economy, regulate fraud (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem I see is that this will lead to more regulation, which leads to less innovation, more draconian laws (see DMCA) and losses of freedom. What congress needs to do is to force -everyone- not just Facebook, MySpace, etc. is that they can't just change terms and conditions whenever they see fit without making us agree to them again.
This is a word game. You're decrying regulation while arguing for regulation, which leads me to believe that you're using "regulation" to mean laws you don't agree with. Prohibiting fraud is regulating trade. It's exactly the kind of thing that we have regulations to accomplish. Regulations can lead to "less innovation", etc., but they can also lead to less fraud, higher quality, better worker safety, and greater accountability. Knee-jerk rejection of laws because some laws are bad is an embrace of anarchy, for which see Somalia.
Congress wants to regulate fraud, false advertising, and other forms of dishonesty and exploitation? Well, good. Will they also pass laws that aren't as good? Absolutely. But we live in a democracy, and we can continue to adjust and improve the laws, just as we've been doing for the last couple of centuries. I think we all pretty much agree that free enterprise is a good thing, within reasonable limits, which we can also all pretty much agree would exclude fraud. To do that, we need regulations.
Re:It's kind of sad... (Score:3, Insightful)
Thing is, "moral responsibility" or not, most people still won't help the helpless.
I'm badly disabled and damn glad I live somewhere more civilized than the US - the chances I'd get the very expensive medical care I need in the US are... kinda low. Made worse by the fact I can't work.
Re:Free economy, regulate fraud (Score:2, Insightful)
Why should they inconvenience their self to create a purge data option when their original TOS stated that they can collect and keep any data you enter by agreeing to said TOS. And why would you put any data about yourself online ON A SOCIAL NETWORKING WEBSITE that you would care about not having others read or store thousands of miles away and accessible from anywhere in the world. I'm facebook, i want your data to sell. I dont care what kind of button you want, you can't have it, this is my website and yuo agreed to post this data on my website.
You, sir, are a walking contradiction to yourself by signing up on facebook in the first place.
Re:As Jon Stewart says... (Score:4, Insightful)
That bullshit is a mile deep (Score:5, Insightful)
And how do you propose people get together to improve the human condition? Maybe they could organize into some sort of group that would decide to use shared resources to accomplish that task, and give their approval or disapproval in some sort of democratic fashion.
Now you might be able to realize that the entire purpose of a democratic government is to allow people to decide how to best use their nation's resources. Some people get their warm fuzzies from denying that this is the case.
Do you know how much good research is done by the CDC? NASA? Publicly funded universities? We wouldn't be communicating right now with computers, or over the internet, if it weren't for government spending to improve the human condition.
The goals stated are quite cheap compared to the profiteering war empire the founders warned against becoming. You just have to pull your head out of your ass and look around.
Re:turnabout? (Score:3, Insightful)
No, most users are apparently clueless and stupid and government regulation is required to protect them since they won't do it themselves.
Maybe they just have different priorities or don't care or whatever. But it's easier for you to assume they're just not as smart as you. That said, if facebook did an about face on their privacy statements, that's probably fraud. No need for any additional laws.
The people who would argue with that are probably the same people who think that a democratically-elected group of legislators passing a bill which the majority agreed with means that we're living under a tyranny
tyranny of the majority, not that i'm arguing every bill/law is tyranny, just that what you said doesn't mean tyranny is impossible. which is why, government is supposed to be limited in what it can do. In the US constitution there is a list of things that congress is allowed to do, and if it's not on that list, it's quite clearly not allowed to do it. But this get abused, because apparently the general welfare clause, means that government can do whatever it wants. thus our founders wasted their time writing all the other items that our government may do.
Re:User Acknowledged (Score:3, Insightful)
That's all I really ask for and I don't find it unreasonable that Facebook is trying to get in as many areas as possible (through sharing everyone's stuff).
You don't find it unreasonable that Facebook says "Hey, come write on this piece of paper, we'll keep it right here in this safe deposit box where only the people you specify (and Facebook for purposes of directing marketing to you) have access" and then takes the safe deposit box and dumps it on the sidewalk while yelling "Free stuff! Come read this free stuff! Anyone can read it, despite what our contract with the user said earlier!"?
Re:It's kind of sad... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I don't get... (Score:5, Insightful)
this targetting by the press and governments towards Facebook. Facebook is *entirely* optional. No-one forced you to type in 'www.facebook.com' and press enter. No-one forced you to click signup. No-one forced you to enter your information and click through the legalese. No-one forced you to upload pictures and fill in detailed personal information. If you're worried about Facebook sharing your personal information, DON'T PUT IT ON THERE!
No one forced me to go to buy lunch with a CC today, but there are strict regulations regarding whether the restaurant is allowed to share my CC number and name with business partners or make them public. No one forced me to sign a non-disclosure contract with my company, but I can't retroactively declare all of the ND info to be public and share it with my company's competitors.
This is about Facebook changing their ToS after people shared their personal info in a way that was understood by all parties to be restricted to a select group of people (and Facebook for targeted advertising purposes only). Imagine if Facebook is allowed to get away with this. Tomorrow, Google could change their ToS to "All your email and google docs are belong to us. We can alter and repost anywhere under your name, and you agreed to it because you agreed to the 'we can change this ToS at any time' clause. Ah HAHAHA!"
Re:That bullshit is a mile deep (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless you suggest we euthanize anyone who arrives at a hospital without insurance, then you aren't actually going to address the issue. When it's your mother or father in a life or death situation, I'll bet that the concept of "my" resources and "your" resources become less of a problem.
"Yeah, I'm sorry my mom had to die. But I didn't want her to consume any of her neighbor's resources."
or
"Yeah, well, the kid's mom didn't have any money and died during child birth. It needed a $20,000 operation to save it's life, but we just pumped it full of morphine until it stopped breathing. We billed it's next of kin for the morphine."
It's a sick world that you want to live in.
Re:User Acknowledged (Score:3, Insightful)
It's really easy to cancel a Facebook account too.
Yeah. With the exception that they don't delete any of your information, it's dead easy.
To actually _delete_ your account, you have to manually go through and delete _EVERYTHING_ which is, to say the least, time consuming. And there's no guarantee that your information is actually deleted - Facebook probably still has it and still sells it...
Re:It's kind of sad... (Score:2, Insightful)
No. It's not ok for that guy to do it either. I'm glad we've straightened this out and come to an agreement.