Facebook Says EU 'Right To Be Forgotten' Would Harm Privacy 277
judgecorp writes "The European Commission has proposed a "right to be forgotten" online, which would allow users to remove personal data they had shared. The idea has had a lot of criticism, and now Facebook claims it would actually harm privacy. Facebook says the proposal would require social media sites to perform extra tracking to remove data which has been copied to other sites — but privacy advocates say Facebook has misunderstood what the proposal is all about."
Misunderstood? (Score:5, Insightful)
privacy advocates say Facebook has misunderstood what the proposal is all about."
Misunderstood, my ass. Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest.
Re:Misunderstood? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, I'd have to say this is a willful 'misunderstanding'.
Facebook's commodity is your data. That's how they make money. They don't want to be told that they would be required to delete your data upon request.
Any time you see Facebook saying "Privacy laws would harm privacy", the real thing they're saying is "but that would cut into profits".
Re:Misunderstood? (Score:4, Insightful)
"'Facebook misunderstood" is "Facebook obfuscated".
Re:Misunderstood? (Score:5, Interesting)
No, no, you misunderstand. Remember that adage "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail"? Well, all Facebook has is privacy intrusion so of course the only way to enhance privacy is to intrude on it. Makes perfect sense when you think about it.
Re:Misunderstood? (Score:5, Interesting)
Sadly, I think you hit the nail right on the head.
From FB's perspective, this would harm your privacy, because FB will have to find even more creative and treacherous ways to invade user privacy to make up for the fact that users could, at any time, choose to have said data removed. I could easily imagine them creating multiple shell corporations that really "store" your data, and then when you ask to have your data removed they simply say "sorry, we don't store your data, one or more of our many affiliate corporations store and manage user data .. you'll have to submit your requests to them..."
Re:Misunderstood? (Score:5, Funny)
"Thank you for your request to delete your personal data
Because Facebook LLC-Subcorp 3b is a wholly owned but separate subsidiary of Facebook LLC-Subcorp 2a1, we do not have your facebook credentials such as your username or password (that would violate your privacy).
We do however, store and back up your personal information, which you authorized Facebook LLC-Subcorp 2b2 to transmit to us on your behalf.
Because you have granted Facebook a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty free license to reproduce, reuse, market and otherwise utilize your personal content in the known universe in perpetuity, we will not actually delete your data. We will however, stop re-sharing it with Facebook LLC-Subcorp #1b2, a Malaysian-Ireland-Turkey LLC.
To verify you own the identify you are requesting to purge yourself from our systems, please supply us with the following:
1) Your full name
2) Your place of birth
3) Your date of birth
4) Your mother's maiden name
5) Your current address
6) Your phone number
7) Your email addresses
8) Your login credentials for google
9) A scanned, notarized copy of your driver's license
When we have validated your identity, we will be happy to remove your personal information from our servers.
For our protection, your removal request may be archived for up to seven years. Your personal information may also remain on backup tapes, magnetic media, aggregated dimensional analysis units, and in any other system we have already sold, licensed, subcontracted, or authorized to use on our behalf.
By submitting a removal request, you authorize us to forward your request to subcontractors as we see fit, with whom we may have exclusive business relationships to resell your identity.
Thank you, your privacy is very important to us."
Re:Misunderstood? (Score:5, Insightful)
Dear Facebook,
Thank you for your response to our legal position.
As you have not complied, your assets across the EU have been frozen, and any executive who sets foot in any EU nation is subject to arrest and criminal prosecution.
Love and hugs,
The guys who actually still make the laws over here
I think when the EU starts fining them substantial amounts and/or issuing arrest warrants, Facebook will notice. Contrary to common belief on US-centric forums like Slashdot, the EU does actually have teeth when it comes to US tech firms taking liberties, and has been known to bite.
In case anyone thinks this is just hyperbole, consider that the EU (both citizenry and government) is getting very fed up with the US (both corporations and government) thinking that it can dictate how everyone else's legal systems and business regulations should work. Anything that screws Facebook while strengthening the EU data protection/privacy position and generating income for the EU via fines is basically a political/economic win/win proposition for the people who are going to be driving the process. Pretty much the only potential downside is losing favour with the US government with consequences elsewhere, but right now the US government is pretty unpopular with everyone so that probably doesn't matter much.
Re:Misunderstood? (Score:4, Insightful)
Thing is, if I have some data X and I delete it, somewhere there has to be a record that says "hognoxious deleted X", which contains X.
Otherwise, you can't prove that anyone is illegally holding a copy of X.
Re: (Score:2)
An RTBF would harm Facebook's private use of the data they've gathered from their products.
Re:Misunderstood? (Score:4, Interesting)
Isn't that the exact opposite of Hanlon's Razor?
Better said, and copied right from my old .signature archive:
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary
depends on his not understanding it"
-- U. Sinclair
Re: (Score:3)
Isn't that the exact opposite of Hanlon's Razor?
Pretty much. When someone trots out Hanlon's razor, see if mcgrew's razor fits the circumstance. If not, Hanlon applies. If so, someone's probably scamming someone. If there's an error that harms someone but doesn't help the person that made the error, than Hanlon is right. Too often it excuses malicious behavior -- always look at motives. "Oops, sorry, I made an error. Please don't notice that I benefitted at your expense."
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Misunderstood? (Score:4, Interesting)
They don't make money from violating mine. Then again, I'm not on facebook because I don't want them to violate my privacy. Damndest thing.
Other people can post pictures of you and "tag" you in them, regardless of whether or not you're actually a member of Facebook.
The only way to know for certain that Facebook isn't violating your privacy would be to have access to every single media item on their servers, and manually go through them all to make sure no one else has posted your private information there.
Or, you know, someone could pass a law...
Re: (Score:2)
The only way to know for certain that Facebook isn't violating your privacy would be to have access to every single media item on their servers, and manually go through them all to make sure no one else has posted your private information there. Or, you know, someone could pass a law...
And the only way to know that they aren't (or are) violating the law is to ... go through every single media item on their servers to make sure that no one else has posted your private information. Simply saying "someone could pass a law" isn't the solution to this kind of problem. Passing a law doesn't mean you "know for certain" anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Wouldn't the proper recourse in such a case be to sue the person who uploaded the images or other information under a slander/libel law rather than going after the site that they posted it to?
Re: (Score:2)
making a few assumtions here
lets say you go to a party and then get drugged out of your mind (spiked drink) they then strip you down shave you and put you in a wig makeup and teddy (with any needed padding). As the party winds down they then start posting pictures AND TAGGING THEM hinting that you maybe wanted to be dressed/act like that.
do you think the Important People in your life would approve?? the ones you haven't met yet??
Re:Misunderstood? (Score:4, Interesting)
Theoretically, you're 100% correct. If it's on an interweb, someone could find it.
In practice, if it's not on fuckyou or tubeface, loan officers and HR drones won't be able to. And they're the ones who can make your life suck.
Re: (Score:2)
Right now, maybe you don't.
But it would nice to know that you could guarantee in the future that someone could NOT post less then flattering photos of you.
It all depends on the _context_ and _your_ right to maintain control over how _your_ data is used and NOT mis-used.
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine Facebook receives an order to remove information concerning a particular incident. How does Facebook remove this information without going through what all its users have shared or otherwise posted to their accounts?
Re: (Score:2)
And the information the other users published isn't private - until they request FB removes it, after which it should be removed. And after that it's gone - no need to go looking through it again.
Re: (Score:3)
Facebook is responsible for what it does with your data, not what their users do with it.
So when Facebook shares your data they have the responsibility to on request "unshare".
Re: (Score:2)
Say I post your address, so you request FB to take it down. Then I repost, the someone else's shares that post. FB has to take both down. Say I post on a different site then post a link on FB, they also has to take that down.
I'm not talking about you making many requests each time I repost that info, I'm talking about you only make the request once and FB has to actively monitor and watch for that information from any and all inputs until the end of time. Every new post must be
Re: (Score:3)
How many times have you been watching an election, and you think there's a clear right and wrong choice (or one clear right choice and several wrong choices), and voters complain that the race had "too much mudslinging."
Sometimes I want to shake such people by the collar and say "IT'S NOT 'NEGATIVE' IF IT'S TRUE, YOU MORON!... OKAY WELL MAYBE IT TEC
Re: (Score:3)
Your average user has absolutely no idea, or just doesn't care, what data FB holds on them and how it is used. The more Facebook shout and cry about how difficult it is for them to remove data the more incidents there will be of people being harmed by their policies - this is unfortunate for those individuals, but in the long run it should serve as an education for others, who will
Re:Misunderstood? (Score:4, Informative)
No, it would not.
Facebook would be responsible for what is posted on servers. Only. If someone copied the data to MySpace, that is a problem for MySpace, not Facebook.
I think you would quite well working for Facebook.
Re:Misunderstood? (Score:4, Informative)
EU wants Google to do the same. If someone requests certain data removed, Google must also remove all references to any/all copies any user has made anywhere on the internet, otherwise get fined.
Re: (Score:3)
Not that is not true. FB/Google only have to remove data you uploaded to them. Links to other sites would have to be dealt with by contacting those sites directly.
The right only extends to data you yourself have uploaded. If people mirror it you can claim copyright infringement but, as is the case right now, would have to go after each copy individually. Hopefully Google et al will make it easy to do, but it is not a requirement.
In other news... (Score:5, Informative)
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Re:In other news... (Score:5, Insightful)
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
As we approach the 30th anniversary I propose we add these to the list:
Sharing is Stealing
Privacy is Terrorism
Re: (Score:3)
Considering that this bill requires the implementation one of the core ideas in the book, ie. the purposeful destruction and reshaping of information, it is quite rich that you would use it to try and rally support for the bill.
So by the same logic... (Score:5, Funny)
The "right not to be punched in the face" would harm health?
Re: (Score:2)
The "right not to be punched in the face" would harm health?
As they say,
"Fighting for peace" is roughly equivalent to "Screwing for virginity"
Re: (Score:2)
And "they" are idiots who know neither history, nor the reality of conflict.
All of history have proven there two basic routes to peace in the face of aggression:
1) When the invaders come, roll over and become their slaves.
2) When the invaders come, kill them all.
You only get to pick one.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
1) When the invaders come, roll over and become their slaves.
2) When the invaders come, kill them all.
I am almost certain that the saying refers to wars that are motivated as pre-emptive strikes.
Fighting back against invaders is more of a "fighting for freedom" than a "fighting for peace"
Facebook on Privacy (Score:5, Informative)
I think I'll take Facebook's views on privacy with a grain of salt. [huffingtonpost.com]
Problem solved (Score:5, Insightful)
Facebook says the proposal would require social media sites to perform extra tracking to remove data which has been copied to other sites
Maybe they can start by not copying user data to other sites.
Re: (Score:2)
One of the biggest gripes about social media sites is the difficulty in moving from provider to provider. Say someone wanted to move from Gmail to Facebook. This would require copying contacts from Gmail to Facebook.
So you copy your Gmail contacts to your Facebook account. You then want to remove those contacts you put into your Gmail account. Does Gmail now have to pass on that removal request to Facebook because they passed on the contact? if they don't then the contact is not completely deleted from the
Re: (Score:2)
Google lets you download XML of all your crap. It's not hard to leave Google because of Google.
Try to d/l your posts from Facebook
Re: (Score:2)
So you copy your Gmail contacts to your Facebook account. You then want to remove those contacts you put into your Gmail account. Does Gmail now have to pass on that removal request to Facebook because they passed on the contact?
Gmail didn't pass on the contacts, YOU did.
if they don't then the contact is not completely deleted from the internet as it still exixts on another provider's system.
Telling Facebook or gmail to actually delete information doesn't mean you're telling them to delete it from anyplace it might be on the Internet. It's telling them to delete it from gmail or facebook, or wherever they sent it.
This is not a complicated problem. And yet, Google/Gmail thinks it is. My idiot ISP has just handed all of their user's personal information over to Google by moving their email services to gmail. Gmail immediately sent out an email tellin
Re: (Score:2)
What if You used an import feature on a new social site to import your data? It could be seen as Facebook giving your information to the new site. Would Facebook have to inform the new site that the original contact was deleted? This is a yes or no answer.
Re: (Score:3)
Unless you picked up the electrons from the Google server and inserted it in the new system then the new system is actually doing the work and you are just authorizing it.
YOU are ordering it to be done, not Facebook. You are doing it, using the software that, gasp, is available on the website.
Did you move the information? No,
Yes, you did. You made use of software that accomplished what you wanted done. That doesn't mean you didn't do it and are responsible for it happening.
An no, you did not do the sync, the app did.
"I didn't shoot the victim, your honor, the gun did. I just pulled the trigger after pointing it in his general direction." "I didn't download kiddie pr0n, your honor, I just clicked a few buttons and the web browser downloaded it." If
Re: (Score:3)
Why is this simple concept for some so hard to understand!
Re: (Score:2)
If I logged onto a new social network site and used their system to transfer in my Facebook contacts would that be seen as Facebook sharing my data with the new site (even if I authorized it)?
Re: (Score:2)
Think of it this way. You send an email, it gets forwarded, then forwarded again, then posted on a forum, then tweeted.
You then tell the person you sent the email to to delete it and every copy that may have been made of it.
Is that reasonable? How could you do that and who gives you the right, especially when there are whole conversations tangentially related to that email that would become orphaned.
The same happens on Facebook. People post an image, it gets reposted elsewhere, comments are added to the rep
Re: (Score:2)
given the choice/knowledge they probably would. however it is kinda foolish to think anything you put online is "private"
Re: (Score:2)
And completely lock users into Google sites so they can never transport their information to Facebook, etc. There has been a huge outcry about social sites not allowing data to be copied and now you are proposing that exact thing. Under your rules one could not copy one's own data from Gmail to Facebook even if one wanted to.
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize you can download an XML
File or two from Google with all your data, right?
Re: (Score:3)
That is my point. Are you now not copying data from Google to your site? Is that not "copying data to other sites"?
It is YOU copying YOUR data to other sites.
Re: (Score:2)
I should have posted as a response to the parent and not your post
Privacy has nothing to do with it (Score:5, Insightful)
To grant one person the right to be forgotten is to deprive another of the right to remember. The sharing of information once legitimately published cannot become illegitimate just because the person involved doesn't want it to be known. The "right" to be forgotten is a form of censorship and has nothing at all to do with privacy.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This. A "right to be forgotten" implies silencing those who do not want a person's actions forgotten, and this must not be allowed.
Re:Privacy has nothing to do with it (Score:5, Informative)
We're not talking about criminal records or warcrimes here.
We are talking about being tracked and datamined, for profit.
This is not a form of censorship.
Facebooks right to know everything about and and make money off it does not carry more weight than my right to be left alone and not be tracked and not be datamined.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure why you're phrasing this in terms of rights. Facebook doesn't have a "right" to track you, but it is part of their business model and user agreement. You agree to be tracked when you use their service. By extension, you don't have a "right" not to be tracked.
Re: (Score:2)
We're not talking about criminal records or warcrimes here.
We are talking about being tracked and datamined, for profit.
How do you legally distinguish between them?
Facebooks right to know everything about and and make money off it does not carry more weight than my right to be left alone and not be tracked and not be datamined.
Neither is a right. You agreed to be tracked when you signed up for Facebook. If you don't like it, then don't use Facebook.
Re: (Score:2)
Where do you derive a right to not be tracked? Is it any more complicated than "I don't like the idea of being tracked, so I'm going to claim I have a right to not be tracked."?
You say you have a right to be left alone? Well so do I. Where do you get the right to tell me to delete information that I've recorded? By doing so it is YOU who are violating my right to be left alone.
Re: (Score:2)
We're not talking about criminal records or warcrimes here.
Yes we are. The example the EU even uses is someone commits a crime, serves their time, and no longer wants to be associated with that crime. That person can request Google, FB, blogs, etc to have to remove any data pertaining to that person having committed that crime. Also, these sites must actively screen new content that may contain this information.
Essentially you have a black-list that will only grow, plus the same content may be worded many different ways. It will be the cat-and-mouse game the YouT
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Thank you. This is the only sensible position I've seen on this subject. If you're concerned about what Facebook will do with information concerning you (note: not "your" information), then don't give it to them.
Re:Privacy has nothing to do with it (Score:5, Insightful)
But what if you never gave it to them?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then why would you need them to forget it?
You buy something from me online using your credit card. I post that information to Facebook. Or maybe you go on vacation and you tell your neighbor you're going away and ask him to watch your house for you. He is an avid facebooker and posts several status updates for himself that says things like "just checkin out my pal mark-t's house for him while he's out of town for three weeks..."
Do you now see why you might have a need for Facebook to forget something that you didn't post there?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see how you can justify censoring your neighbor under those circumstances. I have every right to observe and make those observations public. This is what freedom of thought is all about.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see how you can justify censoring your neighbor under those circumstances.
I can, even if it is a very loong stretch to call it censoring. It isn't his information. He had no right to post about you.
I have every right to observe and make those observations public.
Assuming for the sake of argument that you are right (which I don't agree that you are), the situations I presented are not you observing something, it is something you were told, both the credit card information, or the fact that the house owner was out of town for three weeks.
This is what freedom of thought is all about.
Freedom of thought is not freedom to post every piece of information about other people whereever and whe
Re: (Score:2)
I can, even if it is a very loong stretch to call it censoring.
It's not a long stretch at all. It is plainly censorship, by definition.
It isn't his information. He had no right to post about you.
If it's in my brain, it's my information. Arguing that you own information in my brain is an enormous overreach. The idea that you have rights over my brain is completley nonsensical.
the situations I presented are not you observing something, it is something you were told
Listening to something I am told is a fo
Re:Privacy has nothing to do with it (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Then someone else did. So what? If you can't keep your secrets, that's your problem. It's not my job to keep your secrets for you.
Re:Privacy has nothing to do with it (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the only sensible position I've seen on this subject. If you're concerned about what Facebook will do with information concerning you (note: not "your" information), then don't give it to them.
I respectfully disagree. The information is mine (posts are copyrighted, surely?) and there should be some degree of control over that information. By that logic --
"if you are concerned with what Google may do with your emails, don't open a Gmail account".
"If you are concerned with what a physician may do with your medical history, don't go to a doctor"
"If you are concerned with what bank may do with your money, do not give bank any of your money"
Also, I am concerned about what other users give to facebook about me. Sometimes simply creating the account is enough to give away a crapload of information. I never understood people who have the time to go through and mark things like "I know this person because I worked with them at X" on Facebook. They are literally working for Facebook with no benefit to them.
Re: (Score:3)
If other people disrespect your privacy by freely giving details about you to facebook, that's an issue between you and those people, not you and facebook.
Re: (Score:2)
If other people disrespect your privacy by freely giving details about you to facebook, that's an issue between you and those people, not you and facebook.
And requiring facebook to delete that information when you tell them to is an issue between you and facebook.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, requiring facebook to delete that information is an issue between you and the fundamental right to freedom of speech.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, requiring facebook to delete that information is an issue between you and the fundamental right to freedom of speech.
Are you actually arguing that corporations are people and have the same rights, like the right to free speech?
Are you arguing that a corporation from which you have purchased a product using a credit card has the right of free speech to post that credit card data and data about the transaction online for everyone else to see? Are you arguing that your doctor has the right to free speech, too, and can post details of your most recent office visit online, and you have no right to have it taken down?
No, so
Re: (Score:2)
No, not at all. Corporations do not exist and have no natural rights. They can be regulated as the people see fit. If the people decide they are better off with restricted corporate speech that's fine.
If you want to make that argument then make it. You can make that argument without inventing a fictional right to be forgotten that is in direct conflict with free speech.
No, sorry, the "right of free speech" does not mean you have the right to speechify other people's information whenever or wherever you
Re: (Score:3)
- Giving out credit card information is already against the law. The proposed "right to be forgotten" is not about that.
- Spying on people's private lives is already against the law. Therefore the proposed "right to be forgotten" isn't needed to fight that situation.
- Doctors are required, by law to keep patient information confidential. Therefore the proposed "right to be forgotten" is not applicable there either.
Your exam
Re: (Score:3)
The information is mine (posts are copyrighted, surely?)
Copyright is not a fundamental right either. It is an unjust violation of our fundamental rights to free speech and our property rights. The very concept of ownership can only be meaningfully applied to rivalrous goods. You cannot own information, ever.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I'd say there's a lot to fear even if you have nothing to hide. So hide your nothing, and don't depend on others to hide it for you.
I'm feeling like there is a huge discrepancy between the way Americans see freedom and the way Europeans see it. Taking away the rights of others does not make me more free.
Re: (Score:2)
interesting... never thought about it from that viewpoint, and yet strangely i agree with the statement you make. The more i think about it... i can;t come up with a counter that seems logical.
some one else with bigger brains must help.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
To grant one person the right to not be punched is to deprive another of the right to punch.
Who's rights are more important? The puncher, or the punchee?
Your right to remember me is secondary to my right to not be remembered.
We arent talking about censorship. We are talking about a company datamining my every detail, for profit. So they can market things to me, and sell that info to other people to market things to me. They are essentially selling "me", against my wishes, and with no benefit to myself.
When
Re: (Score:3)
Who's rights are more important? The puncher, or the punchee?
Your right to remember me is secondary to my right to not be remembered
The party being passive gets precedence. Forcing me to delete information is not a passive act on your part. You are advocating the threat of government violence to get someone to delete information. That is much more analogous to punching than sitting quietly minding your own business.
We arent talking about censorship.
Yes, yes you are. Any time the government prohibits the
Re: (Score:3)
It's a proxy for violence. You don't think you are being violently aggressed upon when you are issued a speeding ticket? Just try refusing to pay and you will see how violent the government really is.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it is censorship, but i disagree with your claim that it has nothing to do with priavacy. In a sense, things like this highlight the fact that censorship sometimes is a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
You are free to remember, you just can't keep records.
Re: (Score:2)
The "right" to be forgotten is a form of censorship and has nothing at all to do with privacy.
I think you are both right and wrong on this. It depends on how you implement this "right".
The way I originally heard it, the "right" was essentially "if I ask for something I uploaded to be taken down and deleted, it has to be taken down and deleted". If one quits Facebook and deletes their profile, it should actually be deleted. This I completely support, because while it's technically censorship, it is in the hand of the user and creator of the content, not in someone else's hands. And if someone happene
Re: (Score:2)
All the law requires is they delete any and all information about the individual that requests it.
Because such data belongs exclusively to the individual.
Re: (Score:2)
Which analogy holds really depends on who "owns" the information.
The problem is that information is not something that can be owned. It's a completely nonsensical idea with all sorts of problems, which we are seeing played out here.
Think twice. (Score:3, Informative)
Upton Sinclair (Score:4, Informative)
It could be true. (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, it isn't far-fetched to assume that lawmakers will do something idiotic that causes a bunch of consequences they didn't intend. While I can easily see Facebook trying to language-lawyer this shit to their advantage, I'd give it 50/50 chance the law actually does imply the goofy stuff Facebook says it does.
I believe that laws should always be enforced in full and to the letter, along with all unintended consequences. This way, broken laws can be quickly identified and fixed (or repealed). It also would prevent prosecutors from selectively enforcing obscure provisions of the law to target specific individuals.
When judges and juries start making exceptions for cases that are "obviously not what was meant" we just encourage more sloppy law-making.
Facebook says (Score:2)
"the proposal would require social media sites to perform extra tracking to remove data which has been copied to other sites"
aka
We sold the user date to 100's of other companies....
Fuck facebook x 3 (Score:2)
Yes, please (Score:2)
Please do track to which sites you are copying my information, and also please can I see the list.
Option to remove some information from specific site would be nice.
Facebook has no right to comment (Score:3)
Facebook has no right to comment on this. We're talking about a person's right to privacy, not a corporation's right to privacy.
Facebook is not a person; it is a corporation. It has one end goal: to make money. Everything Facebook says is driven by that one goal. If Facebook says that the right for people to be forgotten would harm privacy, what it really means is that the right for people to be forgotten would reduce Facebook's profits.
Not on FB, but someone else posted my info.... (Score:5, Interesting)
.... and took it upon themselves to post information about me on-line. So as a non-FB user, I have every right to be forgotten when I never gave them (the user or Facebook) permission to put information about me out there. I didn't create an account. I tell everyone I know to not put information about me on Facebook or on any social network, but when someone else takes it upon themselves to post info about me, now FB claims that they own that data.
This is where I have big issues with Privacy laws and companies who data mine and then sell that data.
Don't I have every right to be forgotten, since I went out of my way to avoid being "remembered"?
divorce without TOS (Score:2)
I have no commercial relationship with Facebook. I've never visited their site. If they are maintaining information about me, it's entirely without my consent. I'd like to click a box to disappear myself from their incidental radar screen (such as if people I know unwisely divulge my image or personal details), but it appears that I'd first have to agree to the Facebook TOS to do so.
Let's have a law that enables divorce without TOS.
Re: (Score:2)
What if I already had that information?
If your friend tells you to forget his phone number, why would you refuse to do so? Are you going to say "no, asshole, I'm keeping your phone number just to spite you."
Why do you care what your friend tells facebook?
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you assume this law is directed only to Facebook or other free web services?
Re: (Score:2)
No, I didn't. It's just that the words you use in your entire message basically boils down to willfully handing over information about yourself as if that is the only way you are ever tracked. Searching for a product on Amazon, a search query on Google, merely visiting any particular site, or any number of things are sufficient to begin building profiles about you and your internet habits. It isn't always just posting your information on facebook for them to harvest or using gmail.
I agree that people should
Re: (Score:2)
How is it "abuse?" People sign up for it knowing they're posting a whole bunch of shit out on the internet where everyone can see everything.
I don't have a facebook account, but I know people who do so I'm probably on it. See the problem now?
Re: (Score:3)
DNT is a completely different issue - there's nothing saying the corporate stalkers have to pay any attention to your DNT setting, it's simply a request that they don't do so. As such if DNT is off by default then having it on means "I care about this issue enough to ask you politely not to track me", whereas a with default-on all it mean is "I'm using browser X", and how exactly does that help anyone?
Re: (Score:2)