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."
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!
(IANAL)
I think you're a bit off on this one. In the Flickr / Virgin Mobile case, the problem revolves around whether the photo had the appropriate attribution. Copyright over the image was never in question.
In this case, the question is who owns the content of that review. If I post a positive review of something on a site, with a picture of me, do I retain the copyright over my review? And just as importantly, can my image be considered part of the review? If Facebook owns the copyright, and the image of the author is part of the review, I would think that Facebook can sell the use of it to the vendor as they see fit.
"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
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.
Yes, you sometimes see people with crazy pictures, but there are very few of those, from what I've seen.
Earn a % of cash back from Newegg, Tiger Direct, Walmart.com, and more: http://www.mrrebates.com?refid=458505
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.
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.
I would go so far as to say that such referrals and recommendations, coupled with the capacity to gauge the character of those recommending, is all the advertising the world needs.
If the scheme were fully transparent and held by a not-for-profit group, instead of privately held and administered behind closed doors, this would be great.
Privacy is overrated. We should ditch it.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
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.
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.
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
What is quoted above is, in fact, true. Unfortunately the truth of it does nothing to negate the truth of the following statement, as they are not mutually exclusive:
See how that works? Both are true. Ever heard the phrase 'the truth lies somewhere in the middle'? This is why law books are not pamphlets...
I am not saying at all that you are wrong, because you are not. I'm not even arguing with you. I suppose I'm merely trying to encourage deeper thoughts.
On that note, forget I said anything...
Personally I'm of the camp that we should embrace the transparent society. At least that way there's some equity.
Ok, let's go for it.
You first.
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".
Indeed. It may seem a bit paradoxical, but in order for a transparent society to have any merit, the watchers must be the first to be watched.
Kind of a microcosm of the real world.
Yeah, yeah. Heard it a million times. You're still here though, so you're not that pissed.
As for the reason I wrongly believed you were trolling is that I find it hard to believe anybody would advocate what you are advocating. I strongly approve of high levels of transparency when it comes to governmental entities, but your posts have given me the distinct impression that you view privacy, at any level and for any reason, as unnecessary and detrimental.
Now, obviously I haven't caught all your posts on the subject, so correct me if I'm wrong. Otherwise, you're freaking me out. Do you really need to know that I jerk off to a signed picture of Margaret Thatcher?
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
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.