Facebook Scrambles To Contain ToS Fallout 409
Ian Lamont writes "Anger over Facebook's ToS update has forced the company to scramble. Yesterday, a spokesman released a statement that said Facebook has never 'claimed ownership of material that users upload,' and is trying to be more open to users about how their data is being handled. Mark Zuckerberg has also weighed in, stating 'we wouldn't share your information in a way you wouldn't want.' Facebook members are skeptical, however — protests have sprung up on blogs, message boards, and a new Facebook group called 'People Against the new Terms of Service' that has added more than 10,000 members today."
Serves you right (Score:5, Insightful)
Its enormously popular, and (to some) provides a lot of value... and its free. What did you THINK they were going to do with the info you have up there ? It's a massive social engineering/data mining study, and you're taking part in it.
An echo chamber... (Score:5, Insightful)
Dont we have this discussion about once a year?
I remember the exact same thing going down with Flikr, Myspace, Youtube... Of course I dont agree with the wording and implications of the new TOS but can anyone point me to an example where any of these sites have commandeered content and used it nefariously? Microsoft maybe once?
Re:Oh, that's all right then (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh, that's all right then (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm going to protest Best Buy by going in and buying stuff! That'll show them!
When are people going to learn to 'protest' facebook by not using facebook?
Re:People Against the new Terms of Service (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Just delete it (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Oh, that's all right then (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that people already use Facebook and they are invested in it (they have friends, pictures, etc) and this is a change in TOS that you can't refuse, if you just leave Facebook the TOS says (from what I understand) that they have control over your info... so what use to leave now?
Re:Oh, that's all right then (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually it was easy for me... I found all the people I actually cared about on the site. Which happened to be all my friends because I did not add everyone under the sun. Told them how to get in touch with me, then proceeded to delete everything I had uploaded in the first place. Started removing all information about me, which was not much because I was never very fond of putting up all my info on there anyways. Then closed the account. So they can have my schools email and that I play guitar and like anime but that is about it. Sure they may have backups but screw it I'll live. And I don't mind not having facebook anymore either.
Re:Oh, that's all right then (Score:5, Insightful)
"...Sure they may have backups but screw it I'll live"
More than just backups. When you "delete" something your just setting a Is_Deleted flag on their database. As far as facebook is concerned, your information is just as easily available as if you were an active member.
Re:Serves you right (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed. Someone went to a lot of effort, and spends a huge stack of cash every month to keep FB operating and providing those free services. Very little in life is truly free... and this is no different.
They provide us with an entertaining and occasionally useful service without any cash changing hands, but that doesn't mean there isn't a cost involved.
Don't like that they can re-use your "private" data? Don't post it. Want to post it? Regardless of whether your talking about Facebook, some other social site, or even just old-fashioned web pages, as soon as you post it... it's publicly available and there is nothing you can really do to prevent it.
My advice to FB users (that includes me) is to use the same common sense you should be using everywhere: don't post something your mother couldn't read. It's corny, but that perspective could keep a lot of people out of trouble.
If you really want something private, don't use a public social site to post it. There are plenty of web hosting companies to choose from, and for just a few dollars every month you can have space for a web page and stored files. Just find a secured template... and remember that nothing is ever - EVER - truly secure if it is publicly accessible.
Cheers, and happy Facebooking!
Jim
Re:Oh, that's all right then (Score:5, Insightful)
Boycotts aren't supposed to be easy. Neither is any other passive protest. Ghandi didn't go "oh well shit, this is hard, you win".
If you really want Facebook to pay attention, start letter writing campaigns to their advertisers. Start boycotting their advertisers
Re:This is nothing new (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm probably going to sound like a complete prig here but anyway...
I don't have, nor have I ever had, a Facebook account. However I have regularly seen a friend's account when I've been at his place and as we grew up together I'd say it is representative of what I would have to endure.
I have found that all the people who find and friend (or whatever is the trendy not-really-a-verb term they use) him are those I - and often he also - only ever knew in passing.
Believe it or not I'm actually quite a friendly person and get on with pretty much anyone who cares to sit down and talk to me. (I recently went alone on a two week vacation where this trait was borne out but that's another story). The thing is, these people often didn't want to know me back then and for some reason they now get it into their heads that being chummy online and sending piddling messages around is somehow OK.
To be frank I have no interest in 're-'hooking up with these people. I don't find them very interesting to be honest. Their statuses all echo the current 'joke' that is being flushed around the tubes and what they are doing doesn't actually interest me at bit.
The thing I find really amusing is that the protest group is using the very tool they are protesting against to stage the protest! This is precisely what I would expect from the people I've seen on there.
The fact is that there are many people out there who do not seriously consider what happens to their data. Just as with real life: that I know people who do not shred bank statements is one example; they just throw in the trash all sorts of identifying data without a second thought. They just don't care, even after being informed of the potential dangers.
Similarly folks signing up to Facebook don't generally want to let an inconvenience like statements in the terms and conditions keep them from their oh-so-important online life. I suspect it is this mentality that is behind those members who joined the protest group. They don't care enough to just walk away. Sure, it seems that superficially they may be having an effect, but I'd venture a guess that Facebook are merely doing damage control. They will still try and get away with as many of the contentious statements as they still can because they know that their users are reluctant to leave. That stacks the cards in their favor.
(I do want to point out that obviously not everyone who has an account is an idiot - my friend for one is certainly not, nor I would say are my ex-colleagues who also had accounts - but it does tend to attract a certain shall we say, demographic.)
Re:An echo chamber... (Score:4, Insightful)
The online community has to learn that NO, you can't just do what you want. If you want a contract to be valid, then the other guy has to agree to it. The worse your contract, the fewer people will agree. If you worsen the TOS, then some of your people will leave you.
The problem is that they effectively said even if you leave, they're going to do it anyway. That's like your landlord still charging you rent after you've already been moved out for a few month - and he amended the lease without your explicit permission.
Re:Oh, that's all right then (Score:5, Insightful)
This sums up all that's wrong about facebook 'protest' groups and 'causes'. You join a cause, then get a warm and fuzzy feeling that you've actually done something. YOU HAVE NOT DONE ANYTHING APART FROM CLICKING THE MOUSE! It's even more useless than email petitions. Want to make a difference? Write a letter to your politician, go to a protest, start a boycott, strike, blockade, start a campaign group, talk to people in the street, stand on a soapbox, fuck some shit up. But it's gonna take a hell of a lot more effort than joining a facebook group.
Re:I pulled all of my photos off (Score:4, Insightful)
I yanked my photos off and I won't be putting up any more.
Unfortunately. . .
"You hereby grant Facebook an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to (a) use, copy, publish, stream, store, edit, frame, translate, excerpt, adapt, create derivative works and distribute (through multiple tiers), any User Content you (i) Post on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof subject only to your privacy settings or (ii) enable a user to Post, including by offering a Share Link on your website. . .
Too bad that Facebook claims it already owns your photos, now. You yanked them too late, and they're gonna sell them to the Weekly World News, and we'll all learn about how you met Bat Boy at some tranny bar in Hoboken while plotting your time-travel assassination of JFK.
Re:And begat the Fed Trade Commission complaint... (Score:5, Insightful)
What most people don't seem to realize is that their original TOS wasn't too hot to begin with as it were. It's not so much that the conditions under their TOS are unusual, but more that it offers no consideration for the kind of data that the TOS covers.
If Youtube claims an automatic all-use license for content uploaded onto their servers, it's not that big a deal, as all it has are videos. If Flickr did the same, it's a little worse, but still not that big a deal as all they really have are pictures and some comments.
But Facebook contains a huge amount of personal information--and they are as anal in keeping information as a wiki--some of which may be protected by privacy laws. Even if AOL said they keep all logs of all conversations that go through AIM and can use it for whatever purpose they like, there isn't nearly as much personally identifiable information as there is on Facebook, and that and more was effectively what Facebook's original TOS entailed. Such a TOS on their part is irresponsible at best, and criminal at worst.
Lawyers with too much power (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm reminded of a comment from a previous story, about how it takes strong leadership to manage company lawyers, who will otherwise go on a paranoid spree about their particular fears.
These companies employ lawyers to produce contracts that excuse them any liability and grant them infinite rights "just in case", and then get very surprised when users actually take them seriously. "But we wouldn't really do that!"
Clue: tell your lawyers what you ACTUALLY need and want, don't just let them fill in the gaps with their imaginations.
Re:Goobook? Bookle? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oh, that's all right then (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Language (Score:3, Insightful)
God forbid anybody write their ToS in regular, everyday, guy-on-the-street English (or the local language of choice). If it weren't for all the legalese written by lawyers, for lawyers, that only a third lawyer could understand, this sort of crap wouldn't happen.
I don't entirely disagree, but it's worth noting that "legalese" is used because it is highly specific in a way that vernacular English simply is not. There are words, terms, and concepts only found in legalese that have highly precise definitions that help avoid gnarly court battles.
Re:Lawyers with too much power (Score:5, Insightful)
IAAL, and I disagree. We don't spend our time making stuff up and convincing our client's it's what they want.
You can rest assured that this is exactly what Facebook was after, and that their instructions to their reflect it. If you tell lawyers to make something as favourable as possible, that's exactly what they'll do.
Re:An echo chamber... (Score:4, Insightful)
What?
In your scenario someone posts excerpts of a book they are writing online, say as a series of notes on Facebook, then after this book is published Facebook Lawyers® are going to 1. hunt down a user and then 2. sue them in open court for a share of the profits?
Im sorry but im still not buying these hypothetical situations. Can we pin down anyone actually ever getting screwed by this (be it FB, Myspace, Youtube, Flikr, Whatevr)? I mean this is capitalism - saying "once there is money in ripping people off it will happen" doesnt cut it - lets see it actually happen.
Re:Serves you right (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't -have- to put any content that you consider valuable on Facebook, you know ?
Even if you -do- want a FaceBook profile, there's no reason it cannot consist of "I'm named X. Y. to see a gazillion of my pictures/poems/essays/whatever, visit my homepage at [url]"
Their unlimited perpetual rights to do whatever the hell they please with any content you upload to facebook, only covers content that you actually, you know, upload to facebook.
Re:Oh, that's all right then (Score:5, Insightful)
The best way to hit them is NOT TO USE THE DAMN SITE! How simple can it be?
Re:Oh, that's all right then (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing is broken. It works fine so long as you are CAREFUL.
Who in the hell moderates so fast that they miss their target option? Slow down, buddy, you're gonna give yourself a heart-attack.
Re:Oh, that's all right then (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oh, that's all right then (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh, that's all right then (Score:3, Insightful)
"We think this is the right way for Facebook to work, and it is consistent with how other services like email work. "
Which is exactly what I've been saying since this whole thing kicked off. What's the big fuss about? It's an old-style homepage and email through a different interface.
We were doing this in the early 90s.
Re:Oh, that's all right then (Score:1, Insightful)
Your laptop is broken, or at least your settings are. Change one or the other before you do something more serious than mis-moderating.
Re:Oh, that's all right then (Score:3, Insightful)
Yet it requires no mail software to setup, and you don't have to actually create the web page - even through templates. Hence its success, and its domination over MySpace. It's easy to use!
Re:Oh, that's all right then (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, but who doesn't get an email address from their ISP or some other service?
I know, HTML is hard* and facebook is easy, I guess I just don't get the whole thing. But then I never got why people used to forward dumb chain emails either. Thankfully it seems that the facebooks of the world have taken that sort of thing away from email.
*for certain values of hard
Re:This is nothing new (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm probably going to sound like a complete prig here but anyway... I don't have, nor have I ever had, a Facebook account. However I have regularly seen a friend's account when I've been at his place and as we grew up together I'd say it is representative of what I would have to endure. [...] The thing is, these people often didn't want to know me back then [yet] being chummy online [now] is somehow OK. To be frank I have no interest in 're-'hooking up with these people.
You're not the only one who feels that way (good to know I'm not alone, either). I think you make your point very well, and it does not come across as prudish or technophobic; just very sensible in a way that is becoming increasingly rare.
(I do want to point out that obviously not everyone who has an account is an idiot - my friend for one is certainly not, nor I would say are my ex-colleagues who also had accounts - but it does tend to attract a certain shall we say, demographic.)
Neither would I call most of my acquaintances "idiots". But I am, regrettably, honestly inclined to call the majority of them "sheep", in the sense of "if all your friends were to jump off of a bridge, would you, too?" (actually, if that were a real-life scenario, I'd take a careful look around to see what the heck I should be fleeing from, but I hope you get my point).
It's human nature to follow the herd, so a large amount of flocking behaviour is not only to be expected but very probably futile to dispute. The thing is, though, that the technological advances of the last couple of decades has very clearly outpaced the social ditto -- the force with which one is impelled to make use of the latest fashion is far greater than the urge for thoughtful consideration whether it's really such a good idea. This is evidenced in how "common sense", as a term, falls ever more out of sync with what people currently deem sensible, and is consistently brought into play as an example of something archaic.
I'm not just talking about Facebook or the 'net; it's just as much the software EULA's which people routinely click through, the giving of cell phones to 8-year-olds, the dumbness of the tv shows that are broadcast (and watched), and other such "modern" behaviour. Okay, now I sound technophobic; I'm not, but I do yearn for a more thoughtful state of mind in the general public.
Re:Oh, that's all right then (Score:1, Insightful)
WRONG! By protesting on facebook, they allow people who don't have their dicks e-plugged into /. (i.e. young facebook users) see the damage they can potentially cause by uploading their stuff. So now (sure damage done) the younglings may stem the tide of information upload, no new information makes facebook worth a LOT less! The best way to do this is to advertise ON facebook.
I seriously doubt the national news is going to pick up the story of the 29 year old virgin who stopped using facebook as a political point; and even if they did, teenagers wouldn't give a shit what your dorky ass was doing, they'd likely try their hardest to do the opposite of you.
the dumbness of tv shows (Score:1, Insightful)
"I wish there was a knob on the TV to turn up the intelligence. There's a knob called 'brightness' but it doesn't work."
It's probably about the BACKUPS (Score:3, Insightful)
I suspect this is merely a boilerplate change to cover the legal status of ownership/possession of the users' content on the backup media when accounts are deleted. The new terms were quite poor, because they were too broad and vague in what they permitted the company to do, the users interpreted this is the worst possible light, and we have the situation you now see. (It is important to note that the users were not incorrect to interpret the terms in the worst possible light! One should always look at worst-case interpretations of a legal contract.)
The old terms were likely insufficient, and placed the company at risk of a lawsuit for retaining data (on any media, in any form) that the user had deleted. In reality, it is not feasible to search out all copies of a user's content on all live and backup media to over-write it if they delete their account.
By taking ownership in perpetuity, the company mitigates any legal risk from maintaining backups, and the old backup data could be destroyed over time through the process of backup media destruction or re-use in another backup process.
Now the lawyers will have to revisit the boilerplate language, remove it, and craft a new legal framework to cover this situation with much more in the way of specifics (maximum length of data retention, method of data destruction, possibilities for restoration before the maximum time elapses, liability of the company toward the user if the obligation for deletion is not met by the maximum stated time, etc...etc...)
This is how terms-of-service documents get so long and unwieldy, folks.
Re:Oh, that's all right then (Score:4, Insightful)
On a laptop, using a touch pad it is easy to accidently click in a popup. It just takes a light tap.
That's why real laptops (Thinkpads) come with trackpoint devices. :)
OMG watch out...protests on blogs! (Score:3, Insightful)
" protests have sprung up on blogs, message boards, and a new Facebook group called 'People Against the new Terms of Service'"
Ya that'll show them. All Facebook has to do is wait a couple weeks until the backlash dies down. By that time all of these protesters will have resumed their normal Facebook addiction.
Out of all these protesters, how many will actually voice their dissatisfaction by actually canceling or ceasing their use of Facebook? 1%? Maybe 2%?
As if there is privacy anywhere in webspace (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why is it so hard? (Score:4, Insightful)