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."'"

Comments

Ya

[moogied]

Man nothing would be worse then ad's targetting me on a website where I put my full name, school, work, a list of friends, a list of likes and fears, and pictures of myself.

Those bastards.

Definition of privacy

[elwinc]

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.

Ahem, from the terms of use:

[ericrost]

"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.

This is fine

[jonnythan]

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.

Re:As long as the users don't care...

[Donniedarkness]

Most facebook users I know don't really care about any "attention" they may get through the site. They use it to easily send messages to friends and keep in touch with people from their old high schools (I live on a college campus).

Yes, you sometimes see people with crazy pictures, but there are very few of those, from what I've seen.

Re:Facebook is public

[cybermage]

The site assumes that if you post something about a product where the whole world can see it, then you consent to being used in an ad.

That's an assumption that will get them sued. There are laws and legal precedence about using people's likenesses without their consent. Just because you say you like a product or service in public it does not give anyone the right to use that as a commercial endorsement of the product or service. If it were so, you'd see celebrities constantly hounded to give their opinions on products hoping to use their response in advertising.