Slashdot Mirror
The New Facebook Ads - Another Privacy Debacle?
privacyprof writes "Facebook recently announced a new advertising scheme called 'Social Ads.' Instead of using celebrities to hawk products, it will use pictures of Facebook users. Facebook might be entering into another privacy debacle. The site assumes that if people rate products highly or write good things about a product then they consent to being used in an advertisement for it. Facebook doesn't understand that privacy amounts to much more than keeping secrets — it involves controlling accessibility to personal data. 'The use of a person's name or image in an advertisement without that person's consent might constitute a violation of the appropriation of name or likeness tort. According to the Restatement (Second) of Torts 652C: "One who appropriates to his own use or benefit the name or likeness of another is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy."'"
Those bastards.
So basically, -1 troll/offtopic is really slashdots way of saying "I hate that you thought of something before me."
As long as the users don't care I don't see the problem. Think about a lot of the people that use facebook. This is they're dream. They seek attention constantly with bawdy pictures and things. As long as facebook refrains from using pictures of users that have restricted accounts, I could see this being a bonus for particularly attention seeking users.
I got a catholic block.
This happens every single time Facebook debuts a new feature. X amount of people go completely bonkers. A few weeks, maybe months, later everyone goes back to not caring.
Sounds a lot like the case when Virgin Mobile used a photo of a person from Flickr that was uploaded under "an Attribution Licence, which the Creative Commons website explains, will let others copy, distribute and display your photo and derivative works based upon it, provided they give credit the way you request."
http://www.out-law.com/page-8494
Libertarian Leaning Political Discussion Forum.
to facebook, combined with some legal mumbo jumbo, potentially give facebook the right to use those pictures?
You agree to let facebook use any pictures uploaded for yadda yadda yadda...
*I agree*
Hey, no fair! You're using my picture.
I really don't see this as similar to, say, me going around and taking pictures of people and using them without consent.
Post is 100% right. The definition of privacy is control of personal information. Secrecy is one means of control, but not the only one. Things like the "do not call" list are implementations of privacy by other means; i.e. they have your personal information, but you can still prevent them from using it by calling. Credit card and bank account info are also private: you give your CC# to a vendor and the vendor is only allowed to use it for the purpose of that transaction. Facebook apparently fails to appreciate the distiction between privacy and secrecy. They need to understand the magnitude of their error.
--- Often in error; never in doubt!
I find the Facebook privacy stories frustrating because they seem to always ignore one thing - in almost every case the Facebook user decides how much information to make public, to whom, and which applications to install.
Facebook actually does a pretty good job of giving users control over their information and arguably is transparent about the ways that it may be used. That's more than a lot of e-commerce sites can claim, and in an age of spam-bots and the like probably commendable.
And ultimately it is optional, you have to choose to sign up.
Three Squirrels
All they would really need is consent. If facebook wants to use a picture, then email that user asking for permission. There would likely be some people who don't wish to have a picture used, like if you were holding a beer and are under 21, but there are others who would be fine with it. This would be easier if they just paid people $20 for every picture they used, lots of consent and cheap ads.
Facebook, and its owner can simply put that consent for these ads into their Terms of Service agreement for new and existing users. Simple as that.
Previewing comments are for sissies!
"When you post User Content to the Site, you authorize and direct us to make such copies thereof as we deem necessary in order to facilitate the posting and storage of the User Content on the Site. By posting User Content to any part of the Site, you automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to the Company an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, publicly perform, publicly display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in whole or in part) and distribute such User Content for any purpose on or in connection with the Site or the promotion thereof, to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into other works, such User Content, and to grant and authorize sublicenses of the foregoing. You may remove your User Content from the Site at any time. If you choose to remove your User Content, the license granted above will automatically expire, however you acknowledge that the Company may retain archived copies of your User Content."
So, you gave them permission, good luck fighting it.
Suckers.
My Babylon
I've never visited Facebook so I have to ask, how do they control what photo is on your profile? Suppose I sign up and put Brad Pitt's photo up, are they manually checking photos to be sure they don't accidentally use Pitt's? Suppose I sign up and put my brother's photo up as mine, or my sister's, or a friend's, or another? How could anyone, much less any algorithm, at Facebook verify that the photo they are using is one they have a right to?
I smurf everything and everything I smurf is perfect.
You rate a product there, you are providing Facebook with your opinion of the product. You agree to let Facebook use this opinion any way they want. You've also agreed to let Facebook use the pictures you've uploaded.
This conforms just fine with the user agreements. If you don't like it, don't use Facebook.
This story going public may be the first introduction to the phrase "online privacy" and its associated menagerie for most FaceBook users.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Facebook are quite happy to collect information on anyone who has ever been a user, including identifying them in photographs, even if they closed their account immediately after discovering that the site is one big invasion of privacy. Facebook offer no mechanism for ex-users to permanently delete such information, nor to prevent others continuing to provide it after a user cancels their account (despite the fact that this is almost certainly illegal in many jurisdictions).
So what next? Anyone whose friends group has ever mentioned a product on someone's wall is consenting to to any image of them tagged in a photograph by someone else without their knowledge being used in advertising? Anyone who once mentioned something privately to their friends in order to criticise it gets their face used to promote that thing to the world?
There is just no excuse for this. It's exactly why I am the guy who quit Facebook almost as soon as I'd joined it. Facebook, like Google, is one of the biggest dangers to modern society. Society just hasn't realised it yet, and lets them get away with stuff because they present the appearance of a useful service. Pandora's box ought to be required reading in schools.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
There probably ought to be a new Terms of Usage suit to demand that users who favorably rate or rank products get discounts. There should be a system to verify the tracking previously mentioned to ensure that those who case a favorable uptick in product sales GET those discounts for sales they caused.
There BETTER be an at-will re-rate/de-rate option, too, so that if one initially favorably rates a product and then later experiences an problem can re-rate or de-rate the product, AND still keep their discounts and bonuses. Considering how unscrupulous some manufacturers can be, it stands to reason that networking AND verification should be PARAMOUNT to prevent undeserved sales of products.
Also, when the facebook (or other stores' sponsoring sites' members) rate products, if they are linked to each other, they should know (by choice) when collectively they like or dislike a product, why, what they'd do to fix it, etc. Sort of like the Flixster Movies application on Facebook. But, it needs to be set up with check boxes, radio buttons and free-form text entry fields. There should be a watchdog group to ENSURE that disgruntled manufacturers, resellers and middle-men/women don't have the opportunity to "bury" a bad product review and pretend nothing bad ever happened.
AND, MOST importantly, the reviewers should be indemnified and held harmless from content in their review. They should be warned about libel/defamation/submission of known-false information, etc, and encouraged to be HONEST in their complaints, ideally with screenshots. Might (re)teach the public to regain its skills learned in school (compare/contrast/exposition/description/etc.)
We have a plethora of SHITTY, undeserving, over-hyped, and unnecessary products out there, wasting resources, although these products generate jobs. But, scrupulous screening and rating of products would be an "artificial" form of competition to prevent or deter the introduction of parasitic, shitty, dangerous, or patent/copyright-infringing products or services.
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Social Networking sites are all about pissing on your privacy and going open on the street naked, shouting loud when talking to others so everyone can hear you and just sitting there and checking out other naked people on the ground.
Torts 652C: "One who appropriates to his own use or benefit the name or likeness of another is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy."
Why has no one sued comcast for their forged RST's under this yet?
Please, anyone who uses social web sites have got to have an enormous ego in the first place to think that the world gives a crap about all the mundane details of their little lives. If any one of them are concerned about their privacy, or wouldn't love having their image being used in an ad without their permission because they think it makes them famous, shouldn't be ther in the first place.
I'll admit I'm a Facebook user but I've NEVER submitted my photo (or any other photo) to Facebook simply because I'm too lazy and use it too infreqently to care. That said, there are at LEAST a dozen photos of me on that site, none of which I gave permission to anyone to post. You can't realistically expect people to monitor sites like Facebook just to protect their privacy.
Found a link in the comments under an Inq story ..... pretty interesting ...
http://www.idkwtf.com/videos/latest-videos/truth-behind-facebook
"If the King's English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me!" -- "Ma" Ferguson, Governor of Texas (circa
So I guess posting your opinions on Google and Facebook and a host of other topics on Slashdot is more secure? Do you not think that anyone could look at the IP address that you posted from and find out anything they want about you?
I don't know, a lot of people value communication with friends. I know I do, and I've been able to reconnect with some old friends on Facebook and Myspace that otherwise I wouldn't have been able to contact.
But to be honest with you I have no idea why. So far it just seems like yet another chore dealing with people I know who decide to ping me with some lame ass application or another. What the whole point of it is & what people are getting out of it (& myspace, etc... or 'web 2.0') is completely beyond my comprehension. After reading this & some rumour that I won't be able to delete my facebook account I'm extremely happy I have not put a real picture on my account.
Actually, in the Virgin Mobile case, the issue at hand is that they didn't have a model release for the person in the picture. The picture was properly attributed.
It's well-established in the law (they even cited the code in the Slashdot summary) that you need someone's explicit permission to use their likeness for commercial purposes. Just having the photographer's permission isn't enough. How this relates to Facebook probably depends on the terms of service that the users agreed to when they signed up for the service. It's much less clearcut than the Virgin Mobile case.
I don't care if they do this, but I'm getting a 50% cut on all advertising profit that features my copyrighted image ( of me ).
Thanks kneejerkers for more of the same old "READ THE TOS DOOFUS".
If you actually read the TOS, you'd see this:
"When you post User Content to the Site, you authorize and direct us to make such copies thereof as we deem necessary in order to facilitate the posting and storage of the User Content on the Site. By posting User Content to any part of the Site, you automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to the Company an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, publicly perform, publicly display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in whole or in part) and distribute such User Content for any purpose on or in connection with the Site or the promotion thereof, to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into other works, such User Content, and to grant and authorize sublicenses of the foregoing. You may remove your User Content from the Site at any time. If you choose to remove your User Content, the license granted above will automatically expire, however you acknowledge that the Company may retain archived copies of your User Content."
Now, there's stuff in there about Facebook copying your content for storage. There's stuff in there about letting Facebook perform, display, or translate your content. There's even stuff in there about letting Facebook use your content to promote *Facebook*.
But can anyone in there see any sort of language that says Facebook can use your content to promote other products?
Read it carefully. I don't think there is such language, and I think there might actually be a case for misappropriation here.
This reminds me of the 'feed' debacle. People shared all this information with their friends and then were suddenly shocked(!) when that information could be found all in one place. To Facebook's credit, they responding to this hysteria with some great 'privacy' controls. I put privacy in quotes because the information is still available if you are making it available. If you don't want information shared within your network (or in public) than don't share the information.
Two opt in things need to happen for your face to appear in an advertisement on (for instance) my pages. First, you need to include me in your friends. Your not going to be seeing strangers in these advertisements. Second, you need to rate the product.
There is no privacy issue here. You're sharing information with your friends. If you don't want to do that - don't.
"It's exactly why I am the guy who quit Facebook almost as soon as I'd joined it."
You didn't do your research, and want to complain about it after the fact while taking no personal responsibility.
"Privacy" does not mean "free from the consequences of bad decisions". You are (I assume) an adult. Try acting like one and protecting your privacy instead of assuming someone else will.
By posting User Content to any part of the Site, you automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to the Company an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, publicly perform, publicly display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in whole or in part) and distribute such User Content for any purpose on or in connection with the Site or the promotion thereof, to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into other works, such User Content, and to grant and authorize sublicenses of the foregoing.
Is buying a Harley Davidson as your first motorcycle since you were 16 at age 49 a midlife crisis issue?
Give me a break. If you deactivate your account, all your information is deleted. You're complaining that if someone tags you in a photo, that tag still exists? Well, first, I'm not so sure that's true. It would be pretty sloppy engineering since the user account doesn't exist and so the link would go nowhere. And second, anyone can post anything about you anywhere, that doesn't make it someone else's responsibility.
Don't like what your friends are posting about you? Take it up with them!
It's not the privacy part, Stupid! I already put my picture out there. I want to be PAID when you make money off of my image. It's as simple as that!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
You are wrong. This isn't a question of whether people are seen in public, it's whether their image (and statements) are being used for commercial purposes. Advertising is, by definition, a commercial purpose. With very few exceptions (e.g., legitimate news coverage) you have to get written permission before you can use anyone's likeness or words for commercial purposes.
For an analogy, go to a stock photo site that accepts pictures from the public, e.g., iStockPhoto. They really drive home the fact that you have to get written permission from everyone in the photo, and provide a copy for every single picture. (You don't need it from people who are unrecognizable.) You also have to be careful about infringing on other IP, including such subtle things as the fonts used in signs. Every so often you'll hear of companies having to yank campaigns or products because they didn't have the necessary permissions (or documentation for same). There was even a recent case where the photographer did get signed releases from the subject, but it turned out that they were minors (17) and the father objected to their commercial use and the product had to be yanked. It's a real issue that can cost real money if you skimp on it.
On the other handle, Google created a stink with their cityscape photos, but in that case it was noncommercial use.
The facebook EULA -might- CTA, but I wouldn't count on it until it's been before a few courts. There's just a very different feel to the commercial use. For instance, would that EULA permit advertisers to make up quotes (which you definitely do with stock photos in advertising campaigns)? Would it permit them to hold up users for ridicule, e.g., as somebody in desperate need of zit medicine or grooming advice? As others have pointed out, would it cover image manipulation like putting somebody's head on a model's nude body? (Which may not be a good thing if it's a model for a weight loss product, 'before' shot.)
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
Facebook will probably lose in California with that. California has a right of publicity, enacted because California has so many celebrities that advertisers would like to use in ads.
The EULA says "for any purpose on or in connection with the Site or the promotion thereof". But it doesn't cover the use of images in connection with advertising of third party products. That's a separate issue. California requires explicit prior consent "for purposes of advertising or selling, or soliciting purchases of products, merchandise, goods or services". This is completely independent of copyright. Facebook may have the right to use the images, but doesn't have the right to use the individuals pictured in them for third-party advertising purposes.
In California, everybody has a minimum celebrity value of $750 for celebrity-rights purposes.
When I received a comment from a friend asking me about what movies I enjoy. After clicking on the post it immediately brought up an ad. I though someone "hacked" into his account.
All I can say is that this is pretty disheartening and it sets a very bad precedent. What next, my ISP loaning out my e-mail to spammers for a cut?
You're assuming they haven't given consent. What are the legal responsibilities regarding consent in cases like these? What have the users of such sites agreed to?
You're assuming they haven't already given their consent by signing up/commenting/agreeing to the terms of use. What makes you think the users haven't already agreed to this by agreeing to the terms of service for Facebook?
Irrelevant and a terrible example. Address the users of these websites, not a contrived example that doesn't apply.
This advertisement for Captain Morgan's and loose panties is brought to you by...
It's all good.
Who is driving?
Oh my god bear is driving! How can that be?
Remember, open source is free as in speech, not free as in bear.
And here I was thinking I was the only one who watched those stupid Jay and Silent Bob cartoons...
100% correct.
The internet is becoming one big advertisement, and we're the inspiration, tools, and targets.
There are a couple of real problems with a scheme like this. I must assume that the main reason that Facebook would opt to use user's pictures is because there is a level of trust between the person being advertised to and the picture being displayed. Something akin to having friends be more likely to use a product based on my recommendation than some random person's. If I were to explicitly recommend a product and it did not live up to expectations, then my reputation suffers. By extension, I would assume that if someone bought a product because my face was associated with it in the ad and the product turned out to be a lemon - I would have to think that on some level my reputation would be affected, even if I never actually was involved in the transaction.
I would hope that Facebook would allow people to opt out of an advertising scheme like this, or at the very least allow me to profit off of their use of my face. I think the advertising scheme has a lot of potential for profit, but I am not about to allow someone to get richer off the upside of this scheme while I get nothing but the downside.
Actually, the information is not deleted. Facebook clearly states that if you sign up again after deleting your account all your old info will be there for you, e.g., they don't delete your account, merely inactivate it.
-paridel
No, Facebook is NOT public - the default is limited access - which you may ramp up fruther. Unless you are on my friends list all you can see is my name and the picture I choose for my face. If you ARE my friend, you can see all my pictures, my e-mail and phone, my likes, my hates, and the fact that I induldge my brother by commuting zombiecide with him occasionally, and a fairly spotty account of what I've been up to for the last two years.
I am not willing to make that information public - but I want my friends to have it - and Facebook does this.
-GiH
I have had this argument with several friends who are ... disappointed with my requests to remove any pictures containing me from Facebook. Tags don't have to link to another facebook account, they can simply be names. Even if you delete your account, the picture of you on your buddy's account will still say "Jim Smith" below it.
I don't know what the case law is in the US, but there is a concept of 'unconscionable' for standard form/contracts of adhesion.
The standard in Canada, where I live, is (since an appeals court case a few years back) basically, for contracts like this, or mortgages, or cell phone contracts, etc., it doesn't matter if you said you read it, or read it, or not.
What matters is, if you HAD read it, is it reasonable to assume that you would've still agreed to it or not?
So please, enough with the "you read it, you get what you deserve" type sentiments. Facebook knows most people don't read every single clause in the terms and conditions, and so do the courts.
The plural form of "anecdote" is "anecdotes", not "evidence".
"When you post User Content to the Site, you authorize and direct us to make such copies thereof as we deem necessary in order to facilitate the posting and storage of the User Content on the Site. By posting User Content to any part of the Site, you automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to the Company an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, publicly perform, publicly display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in whole or in part) and distribute such User Content for any purpose on or in connection with the Site or the promotion thereof, to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into other works, such User Content, and to grant and authorize sublicenses of the foregoing. You may remove your User Content from the Site at any time. If you choose to remove your User Content, the license granted above will automatically expire, however you acknowledge that the Company may retain archived copies of your User Content."
So, you gave them permission, good luck fighting it.
Can minors enter into binding contracts? AIR, in many states minors can't be held to terms of a contract so Facebook may not have a valid contract with many of its users.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
A few people have expressed concern, and said they would disable there account, but have you ever tried doing this. If you disable your account none of the information is removed from there database, when you register again with the same email address, all your photos, private information and such items will still be there. Sorry, I think they now own your face
My friend had the same paranoid reservations as the GP about facebook. He refused to get a Facebook for over a year while everyone else he knew was busy socially networking. So in order to teach him a lesson, we eventually just created an account for him... filled with hilarious "details" and pictures about his life. This persisted for a month until he eventually found out about it, and demanded the password so he could delete the account.
After another month of fun, we eventually gave in and gave him control of the account, under the condition he keep it active to correspond with us, and if he ever deleted the account, we'd just create another one, with even more damning details. He has kept the account for almost a year now, and has since then added multiple friends from his past, come into contact with people he thought long lost, and posts "notes" on a regular basis.
The irony is that with an account, he now has more control over his online image than without. The reason being, is that with facebook, the only way you can remove a tag is if you own the photo, or if the tag points to your profile. So the only way to police photos you don't want people tagging your name to... is to get an account.
The lesson to be learned here, is that it's not google, or facebook, or myspace that are the problem. It's not even the internet. The problem is your annoying friends not respecting your privacy.
In relation to yourself, you got one third of that right.
I'm sorry, but every single thing you wrote in your first paragraph is objectively, factually incorrect — other than the fact that you're not so sure about some of it, but that just makes you wrong.
How that got a (+1, Informative) is beyond me.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Fair enough. However:
"Deactivation will completely remove your profile and all associated content on your account from Facebook."
So they keep the data around except no one can see or do anything with it, so it may as well be deleted. If Facebook then uses that information somehow, then that would be a serious concern, but why would they do that? If this type of thing is of great concern to you, then you probably shouldn't be on Facebook or any other website. In fact, the best thing would be to live off the grid completely and suspiciously eyeball anyone who hands you a paper form.
I'm not sure what you want here. A "citizen" IMNSHO, would not expect the law to cover them where they themselves have failed in their due diligence.
Do you now see the problem with your point? We're not talking about people who genuinely care about privacy, we're talking about people who give lip service to privacy, but in fact, do not engage in even basic protective measures.
I have no issue with people who've had their privacy violated. I have a very big issue with people who hand out their information freely, or act like fools in public, then crow about privacy violations after the fact.
http://google.com/
There you go, type your question into the box, it'll give you results, which you can read to gain understanding.
Bullshit. That you even tried that line is ridiculous.
http://www.facebook.com/terms.php
No account registration necessary.
The fucking terms of service are available without giving them any of your data. What kind of retard mods up a whiny crybaby fuck who isn't even right about what he's whining about?
DID YOU EVEN BOTHER TO SEARCH FOR THE FACEBOOK TERMS OF SERVICE?
THEY'RE RIGHT THERE IN THE FIRST LINK WHEN YOU SEARCH FOR "FACEBOOK TERMS OF SERVICE".
How fucking stupid are you? And how stupid is the mod who read what you vomited up and thought "oh that makes perfect sense"?
Sometime I wonder how imbeciles like you operate computers at all, much less successfully post your moronic thoughts.
I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
So you basically blackmailed your friend until he caved in and used a website that he didn't want to use? Nice. What he should have done is told every one of you to fuck off, pissed on your beds, and found new "friends".
If I walk into a Walmart cause I'm stuck in middle america and I need to buy water as I drive to the next town - I don't endorse anyone choosing to buy from Walmart.
If I buy gas from a service station as I drive thru Nevada - I don't have a choice - I don't endorse their gasoline brand.
If I buy a license from Microsoft for software - when I'd rather be buying from Apple or a Linux brand if I had a choice - I don't endorse their OS or the company (even if I did work there and my ex-wife does work there).
This is a very bad idea.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Why not just ask hot chicks to join groups like "I love linux?" ... or "I love windows" and pay them?
So was your post where you claimed
I don't see you complaining that your factually incorrect post was modded up.
Well, okay, from the way it skims, they're offering advertisers space to advertise to your friends that you like something you've already decided you don't mind your friends knowing you like. So if I put "West Wing when Aaron Sorkin still running it," maybe West Wing gets an add on the side of my page or a friends' newsfeed. Unless my 2 second skimming is wrong... okay, maybe it was one and a half seconds... it's a far cry from this to the girl who had her flickr photo stolen for a major advertising blitz across multiple mediums.
Plus, if you have an active account, Facebook will let you remove tags of yourself from anything...
Not exactly.
They're better than most such sites, I agree. But nevertheless, the stinky thing about this one is that if you recieve an advert like this, it looks like I sent you this advert (not the third party such as blockbuster). That is, of course, a complete and utter lie.
(Oh sure if you read the fine print, it might say that blockbuster sent the advert and that so-and-so liked this product. Look at the linked example - doesn't it look (at first glance) that Megan Marks sent the advert? )
And, worse, IMHO, does that example not imply that Megan Marks *endorses* the "Blockbuster Total Access Online" to see "Top Gun?" as opposed to merely Top Gun itself. (i.e., implies that subject of the advert is endorsed by your friend which is probably not true at all!)
Finally, this is done by facebook, not an external application (it's part of the platform even, not a facebook application). Thus, it might simply ignore privacy settings.
The significant fact to my thesis was that they will delete your information. You're free to split hairs over the fact that it is not technically deleted... however the reasonable expectation that users have is that "deleting" information means it then does not appear anywhere. If Facebook violates that, then there is a serious problem, otherwise the technical detail of whether the information is physically expunged from disk is an issue that none but the most pedantic privacy advocate cares about.
I probably shouldn't have commented on how I think tagging works since I didn't know. The key thing there is that a tagged photo of you is not your data. Your friend posted it with your name... frankly this has nothing to do with Facebook. Your friends can post pictures of you with your name in any media ranging from Flickr to a bathroom stall.
It's deactivated not deleted
http://www.regularjen.com/archives/2007/06/25/evidently-facebook-owns-me/
To sell advertising using your image. That's what the original article said they were doing, and what the poster you are responded to was asking if they are doing. We know they keep information from deleted accounts. We know they use information they've gathered to advertise to other users. Asking if they're using information from deleted accounts to advertise is not really that giant of a leap.
Really? You don't see any room for any middle ground whatsoever between me allowing my image to be used in ads, implying I'm endorsing products which I don't endorse, and just staying off the internet altogether? No spectrum at all between those two extremes?
If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
"... You may remove your User Content from the Site at any time. If you choose to remove your User Content, the license granted above will automatically expire, however you acknowledge that the Company may retain archived copies of your User Content."
Exactly, you can't delete your account - you can "deactivate" it - meaning others can find you or see you on the site - but facebook keeps your info stored.
Seems like a totally dubious outfit to me.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
You've granted them a copyright license. A copyright license doesn't allow you to make use of a work when such use would otherwise be against the law. Notwithstanding the copyright license you grant by agreeing to the ToS, it is illegal to use somebody's name or likeness to promote a commercial service or product without their consent, a consent that you have not granted.
This is no different than if I took a photo of you where you are recognizable, licensed it to an advertising agency, and they printed it in an advertisement for Blockbuster. I, as the holder of the copyright on the picture of you, have the right to control who can use the picture for what. You, as the person being depicted in the picture, have the right to grant or deny permission to have your likeness be used to promote a commercial enterprise. The advertising agency, in order to make use of the picture in that way, must obtain my permission to copy, edit, reproduce and incorporate the photo that I took into their own derivative work, and they must also obtain your permission to use your likeness for advertising Blockbuster. This latter permission is normally obtained through a model release.
That case is useful because it shows how the copyright holder and the person being depicted can be two different people, and thus, how commercial use of the picture requires two different permissions from two different parties. In the Facebook case, it will be the common scenario that the holder of the copyright and the person whose likeness is depicted are the same; however, they still need the two permissions.
Are you adequate?
In what way was my post incorrect? Accessing any of the content hosted on Facebook so you can see how it works requires a user account, or at least it did at the time I signed up. There is no way one could, to give the obvious example, conduct a simple experiment to see how much information they really collect without signing up first (or working with someone else who did so).
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
The significant fact to my thesis was that they will delete your information.
No, they won't. They will hide it, and can bring it back on demand.
If you don't get the difference, then you need to talk to a few more of those "most pedantic privacy advocates" and find out how many all too serious problems happen to ordinary people every year because "deleted" information such as personal details or account numbers wasn't actually deleted at all. Perhaps you've heard of identity theft? Stalking? Credit card fraud?
Your friends can post pictures of you with your name in any media ranging from Flickr to a bathroom stall.
Actually, systematically collecting a database of personally identifiable information about anyone without their consent is illegal in some places, and comes with significant limitations on what you're allowed to do in many more. The fact that it's legal at all is a problem, as is the fact that not everywhere gives people a right to force people storing data about them to delete it — properly — if there isn't a good reason to keep it around.
Society currently fails to recognise the dangers inherent in allowing this sort of behaviour. It will, before long, when enough people get hurt. It's just a shame that until everyone understands the idea that just because we can do something it doesn't mean we should, a lot of people are going to get hurt needlessly.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
I cancelled my Facebook account yesterday. Deactivating does _not_ erase your data. In fact, Facebook continues to track messages your friends send to your deactivated account ("holding" them for when you return), and you can even opt to recieve these messages.
To erase your data when you leave, you have to explicitly tell Facebook to do so, and even then, you're taking their word for it.
The only way to win is not to play.
I had a friend, too. In order to cause some general amusement, his best friend eventually just created an account for him... filled with hilarious "details" and pictures about his life. This persisted for a month until he eventually found out about it and that many of his other friends were in on the joke.
It caused the break up of a long-standing friendship, which has never recovered, and put strain on several other relationships affect by the "funny" content and the betrayal of trust.
See, the problem is Facebook, when its basic intent is to get friends to provide information about each other, regardless of whether anyone wants that information made public. People play along, probably quite innocently in most cases, and then before you know it someone goes too far and the damage is done. This is a fundamental problem with many social networking type sites, but Facebook is much worse than most of the others in several key ways.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
And where on that page does it describe what actually happens?
In particular, where in either the page you cited or the privacy policy does it indicate that by signing up to the service (which you haven't yet seen, other than via those pages of dense legal CYA-speak) you will be inviting and give your permission for Facebook to collect vast amounts of personal data about you but not supplied by you? (Note that having such permission is a legal requirement in some places, though possibly not in the US, which is one way sites like this can start to get into hot water.)
It's fascinating that the privacy policy I linked to these days claims Facebook follows two core principles, of which the first is "You should have control over your personal information." They demonstrably do not really mean this, because they collected vast amounts of personal information without my consent and against my will, and they provide no mechanism for me to make them delete it.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
wer r da funny commentz?
Yes, they delete it. Except you can email them and ask them to reinstate it, and magically everything is still there, just the way you left it.
Since you've do all this and have friends who trust you. Have you considered AMWAY? With Facebook and Amway your financial possibilities are endless. Amway will re-brand their products to help you promote yourself on facebook. Just think the millions who come to facebook looking for advice on whats hip and now will look to you for Haircare and cleaning supplies. Because your hip and now, just like facebook and just like Amway. Your future is just a click away.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
I quote myself, with added emphasis:
The gentlemen at your door are picking you up because of the child porn, not because of the IP packets. The IP addresses contained therein are circumstantial evidence that points at you.
Are you adequate?
I mean, if I wanted to be a dick about it, I'd create a profile, let's call him "Big Dick", with a picture of a large penis, or some other equally commercially inappropriate image stuck to it. I would then proceed to comment loudly, publicly and favourably on just about everything I saw being prominently advertised on Facebook. I would be especially gushy over any kind of enterprisey Microsoft ad.
I just don't see how this can end well for Facebook.
A republic cannot succeed till it contains a certain body of men imbued with the principles of justice and honour.
...model release.
As much as the privacy issue bugs me, I don't think I really have a right to complain, seeing as I put the information up there.
Also, as a straight agnostic, I'm really sick of getting ads for Christian philosophy websites and gay dating networks.
This sig is false.
It's telling that once proven wrong about your initial argument, you completely move the goalposts.
You were trolling and I caught you. Good day.
"And you think..."
I think you're a lying troll who will never admit he's wrong.
I don't care to dialog with people who are only interested in browbeating others into submission with lies and insults like you do.
Good day.
Easy this statement is wrong:
I showed you how you were wrong about that, and you replied, so stop acting like you don't know.
And the backpedaling begins. Maybe you should have checked before posting wrong information.
The "statement" you quoted was part of a sentence, which you've lifted out of context. The only person obsessed with the Ts & Cs here is you. Those don't tell you anything about the real nature of the site and what actually happens. In fact, as I already noted in reply to an earlier post of yours, they don't say anything at all about the problem of friends sharing information about you without your consent, which is what everyone else here is talking about. It seems addressing that factual observation was too much for you, though, and regrettably you resorted to name-calling instead of rational argument in your reply.
Incidentally, no "backpedaling" is necessary. I have since checked, and it still appears to require an account to access any of the content posted on Facebook and thus to see what it's really like. My statement remains as true today as it was when I signed up.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
"The "statement" you quoted was part of a sentence, which you've lifted out of context"
First, no it wasn't. Save that nonsense.
Second, please, please stop, it was a lie in context, and it was a lie out of context. Add all the context you like, you were wrong and can't find enough integrity to admit it.
I only hope you grow up enough to realize how ridiculous you appear.
Hey, soulless market-droids - shit like this is why everyone on the planet is predisposed to hate your guts.