Slashdot Mirror


Canadian Group Files Facebook Privacy Complaint

bergkamp writes "A Canadian public policy group filed a complaint charging Facebook with 22 separate violations of a Canadian personal information protection law. The Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic, based at the University of Ottawa, asked the Privacy Commissioner of Canada to investigate what it describes as Facebook's failure to inform members (PDF) how their personal information is disclosed to third parties for advertising and other commercial purposes. The complaint also alleges that Facebook has failed to obtain permission from members for disclosure of their personal information. The claim is that that Facebook violates the Canadian Personal Information Protection and Electronics Documents Act, which Philippa Lawson, the clinic's director, said is much stricter than US personal information protection laws."

37 of 128 comments (clear)

  1. I don't get it by thermian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Facebook is free, and it's not mandatory.

    It should be obvious to anyone with a level of intelligence higher then a chimp that Facebook shares information, it's an information sharing site!

    If you don't like it, don't use it.

    --
    A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
    1. Re:I don't get it by al3 · · Score: 4, Informative

      The issue is that in order for a company to do business in Canada it must respect this nation's privacy laws. In this case, it's about notifying people how their information will be used. Check it out: "[PIPEDA is] an Act to support and promote electronic commerce by protecting personal information that is collected..." http://www.privcom.gc.ca/legislation/02_06_01_01_e.asp Facebook is being accused of not following the law of the land. The interesting legal test will be to see whether or not a US-hosted site is required to conform to this law, and how this will impact application developers inside and outside of Canada.

    2. Re:I don't get it by griefers · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually the 'public policy group' is a group of 4 graduate students from the University of Ottawa.

    3. Re:I don't get it by hweimer · · Score: 4, Informative

      It should be obvious to anyone with a level of intelligence higher then a chimp that Facebook shares information, it's an information sharing site! The problem is not so much the information being shared by using the site as advertized, but the unintended consequences. Why does an application developer (read: everyone interested in your personal data) need to have access to all your data?

      You are probably right that when posting on Facebook one should assume that the information will be essentially available to the general public. However, Facebook claims otherwise and therefore they should be liable for this.
      --
      OS Reviews: Free and Open Source Software
    4. Re:I don't get it by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The issue is that in order for a company to do business in Canada it must respect this nation's privacy laws. In this case, it's about notifying people how their information will be used. Check it out: "[PIPEDA is] an Act to support and promote electronic commerce by protecting personal information that is collected..." http://www.privcom.gc.ca/legislation/02_06_01_01_e.asp Facebook is being accused of not following the law of the land. The interesting legal test will be to see whether or not a US-hosted site is required to conform to this law, and how this will impact application developers inside and outside of Canada. Actually, the question is, does Facebook do business in Canada, or does it merely do business with Canadians? If it is the former, it must follow Canadian law when doing business in Canada. If it is the latter, Canadian law does not apply. Or to put it another way, does Facebook have a physical presence in Canada?
      If Facebook does not have a physical presence in Canada, exactly how will Canada enforce this law on them, should Canada rule that it does apply? I am pretty sure that the current U.S. Supreme Court would not rule in Canada's favor on this, considering that they still seem to support the ruling that state's cannot enforce their laws on businesses located in other states that do business with residents of said state (sales tax).
      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    5. Re:I don't get it by xaxa · · Score: 2, Informative

      It should be obvious to anyone with a level of intelligence higher then a chimp that Facebook shares information, it's an information sharing site! One of the points in the report is that Facebook presents itself as a social networking site and nothing else. The complainants argue that Facebook has other purposes (targeted advertising) which are not made clear. The law states that the use of personal information must be made clear to users when they provide it.
    6. Re:I don't get it by debrain · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, the question is, does Facebook do business in Canada, or does it merely do business with Canadians? If it is the former, it must follow Canadian law when doing business in Canada. If it is the latter, Canadian law does not apply. Or to put it another way, does Facebook have a physical presence in Canada? While physical presence is one of the factors in a forum non conveniens motion, it is not determinative. In Rudder v. Microsoft Corp., 1999 CanLII 14923 (ON S.C.), a Canadian court held that because the EULA required the dispute to be resolved in Washington, Canadian courts were precluded from hearing it. The other factors the Canadian courts (at least in Ontario) consider, per Rudder v. Microsoft, are as follows:

      [20] The factors to consider may be paraphrased as follows:
      (1) in which jurisdiction is the evidence on issues of fact situated, and the effect of that on the convenience and expense of trial in either jurisdiction;
      (2) whether the law of the foreign country applies and its differences from the domestic law in any respect;
      (3) the strength of the jurisdictional connections of the parties;
      (4) whether the defendants desire to enforce the forum selection clause is genuine or merely an attempt to obtain a procedural advantage;
      (5) whether the plaintiffs will suffer prejudice by bringing their claim in a foreign court because they will be
          (a) deprived of security for the claim; or
          (b) be unable to enforce any judgment obtained; or
          (c) be faced with a time-bar not applicable in the domestic court; or
          (d) unlikely to receive a fair trial.


      Also,

      If Facebook does not have a physical presence in Canada, exactly how will Canada enforce this law on them, should Canada rule that it does apply? I am pretty sure that the current U.S. Supreme Court would not rule in Canada's favor on this, considering that they still seem to support the ruling that state's cannot enforce their laws on businesses located in other states that do business with residents of said state (sales tax). To be clear, SCOTUS has no extraterritorial jurisdiction over whether a Canadian court can hear this case; that decision is left completely to the Canadian court. US courts do have exclusive powers over enforcement within their own territory, which enforcement is exercised through the doctrine of comity.

  2. Re:That's nice, and all by mrbluze · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I wasn't aware that Facebook operated in Canada. Borders are a thing of the past.
    --
    Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
  3. If you are on facebook and are concerned about by antifoidulus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    privacy, you are doing it wrong.

    1. Re:If you are on facebook and are concerned about by SBacks · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Facebook is great for keeping up to date on all those people from your past that you care enough to know what they're up to, but not enough to actually talk to them. High school classmates, ex-girlfriends, etc.

      It's the new equivalent of "Hey, did you hear x got married?"

    2. Re:If you are on facebook and are concerned about by BForrester · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Excuse the blatant stereotyping for the purposes of making an analogy:

      If a white person goes for a stroll through Harlem wearing an "I hate black people" t-shirt, and gets shot, that makes him a moron. And dead.

      It doesn't mean that the shooter has a license to kill because of the victim's idiocy.

  4. Re:That's nice, and all by value_added · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Borders are a thing of the past.

    LOL.

    Be sure to email Lou Dobbs in case he didn't get the memo.

    While you're at it, be sure to mention that you've found the solution to end all wars, territorial disputes, and cure the rising tide of nationalism in Russia, China, Kossovo and ... well, just about everywhere, and that fans attending football matches the world over can now settle down and share a quiet cup of tea.

  5. Re:Wrong Target by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...after months of my girlfriend nagging that she wanted to have "xxx is in a relationship with yyy" on her profile. Dude. Just fucking run... NOW!

    Anyone who nags you to get a Facebook account just so she can say she's dating you... oh, forget it. It's far too early to start having this conversation.

  6. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  7. Re:That's nice, and all by sm62704 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Borders are a thing of the past.

    Tell that to the Missouri Highway Patol when you cross the Mississippi river from Illinois on your motorcycle when you're not wearning a helmet.

    Yes, borders are a thing of the past. They're also a thing of the present and a thing of the future.

    If Facebook has offices in Canada, servers in Canada, or workers who live in Canada then Canada has a valid point. If not then Facebook can tell Canada to fuck off.

    --
    mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  8. Re:That's nice, and all by mwilliamson · · Score: 2, Insightful
    So, need I actually abide by laws of other countries if my Website is hosted in the USA and I am a citizen of the USA living in the USA? If so, which countries? What happens if I don't and just ignore their BMCing.

    My blogsite allows user registration and such. I really don't care to become a legal expert in foreign law as the US laws are complex enough. Actually, I don't really give a rats *ss about any foreign governments toes I just happen step on.

    -Michael

  9. Re:That's nice, and all by mrbluze · · Score: 4, Insightful

    LOL. In this context (legal action against a website which has a multinational presence), it is becoming more and more apparent that governments don't care where the website comes from. Sure there still are nominal borders but it's not like you can throw rubbish over the neighbour's fence and get away with it so easily on the Internet.
    --
    Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
  10. Re:That's nice, and all by griefers · · Score: 2, Funny

    It surprisingly does, though the networks aren't that big due to the burden of getting electricity and internet in our igloos.

  11. Odd that Slashdot dosent understand by MrShaggy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I am assuming this will hit the flametard mods. :) However, as being a Canadian, who feels reasonably well informed. I also did read the article, it did make sense. The laws are there to make for disclosure. Which according to many on this site, and others is a good thing. How many times is the battle cry 'how come they didn't open up this standard '. I would rather have this sort of law pushed internationally instead of that dread dmca, as well as many other entertainment industry issues, as well as setting international trade policies. At least this law is for the people. This is the same law that people are using to smack Bell with. Many people seemed to think that was also a good thing. In fact I believe that CPPIC was the same group that also lobbied the crtc with CAIP. I also for one would be using this law if I found out that some company decided to loose my credit card information. I think a few million dollars would do nicely to appease my pain and suffering.

    --
    I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them.
  12. Re:Don't use it then! by xaxa · · Score: 4, Informative
    There are still privacy issues even if you don't use Facebook, as identified in the document. Facebook users can still tag non-Users in photos and videos, and invite them to events. Facebook collects and retains this information without the non-User providing any consent!

    Here's one extract:

    When Facebook collects non-Usersâ(TM) email addresses to send them invitations to Facebook, it collects this personal information from parties other than the individual in question. By retaining
    such email addresses for its own purposes, Facebook is violating the âoeknowledge and consentâ principle outlined in Principle 4.3.3 of PIPEDA by not informing the individual why his or her email address is kept. The non-User has not consented to this retention of information, and is most likely unaware that it is taking place. The non-User only receives an automated email from
    their friend via Facebook, which encourages the individual to join the Network. The email gives no indication to the receiver that their information will now be kept on file or that they must contact Facebook directly to remove themselves from the list. Furthermore, if the individual has received more than one invitation to join Facebook, all past invitations will reappear on the new invitation. This is a clear example of how Facebook retains non-Userâ(TM)s information.
  13. Re:That's nice, and all by weffey · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A couple of months ago, I noticed that Facebook started telling me that I needed to turn on Javascript, even though I had facebook.com in my allow list in NoScript. I noticed that there was now a second server required, http://www.fbcdn.net/ (I checked CIRA's WhoIs and facebook.ca was snatched up by someone else in 2005). I was recently in the states, so I disallowed fbcdn.net in NoScript (just to see), and there were no complains about my Javascript setting until I returned north of the border.

    This seems to imply that there are separate servers running for Canadians accessing Facebook, so at a minimum, that would give some leverage into forcing them to follow Canada's rules. Now, if those servers are physically located in Canada (no, I haven't bothered doing a traceroute to find out where fbcdn.net ends up), that would definitely force them to follow those rules.

    Slightly OT, but in my current job and we recently went looking for a new hosting company to host our database (which has a fair amount of private data in it). Because my company gets a large amount of our budget for the federal and provincial governments (it's a non-profit) we like to abide by as many of the federal government rules when it comes to IT and data privacy. One of those rules is any private data must only be hosted in Canada and it can not leave the country. A few companies came to us as "the Canadian branch of hosting company X". The conversations went like this:
    Me: Where are your datacenters?
    Them: We have them all over the world.
    Me: Ok, but in which of those datacenters is our data going to be physically hosted?
    Them: We can do distributed hosting so it's in many different datacenters
    Me: Yes or no, Are these datacenters in Canadian territory?
    Them:
    Me: So, I'll take that as a no, which means that you know we can't host with you because of the government ruling about hosting private data outside the country.
    Them:
    Me:

    More and more Canadian companies are taking the approach of hosting only in Canada, if only to ensure that they know the rules for data privacy and know there won't be a conflict between Canada's and the other country's.

  14. Crazy by hairykrishna · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Facebook is not a good site for the privacy concious. My friend always maintained that the one thing that orwell didn't forsee is that people would pay for and maintain their own cameras.

    --
    "Physics is to math as sex is to masturbation." -R. Feynman
    1. Re:Crazy by CodeBuster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is ironic isn't it that during the Cold War the Soviet block governments employed armies of agents to compile and maintain paper dossiers on their citizens (particularly in the former East Germany) and now people do the government's work for them by posting every detail of their lives on websites where any intelligence agency can easily find them. The kids who are doing this are apparently completely naïve about the possible long term consequences of what they are doing.

  15. Promoting 'opt in' privacy provisions in contracts by GlowingWhispers · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The issue of whether there should be "opt in" or "opt out" privacy terms is critical. The use of "opt in" contractual terms promotes companies providing more carrots to get a bite from you.

  16. Leaveing Facebook by Saint+Gerbil · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm surprised that its also impossible to leave facebook and have your details deleted, without contacting them directly and then there's about 100 step process in order to get shot of it.

    1. Re:Leaveing Facebook by thermian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm surprised that its also impossible to leave facebook and have your details deleted

      When I'm going to leave it I'll just change the data first to nonsense, leave it for a few weeks to make sure it filters through the system, and then disable my account.

      Not that I've ever put any really private stuff there.

      --
      A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
  17. Re:That's nice, and all by mrbluze · · Score: 2, Funny

    While that may be the real issue here, and worthy of prolonged discussion, Lou Dobbs jokes are infinitely easier. ;-) Tell that to.. uhm.. some other guy uhm.. ok ok you win!
    --
    Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
  18. I am canadian but.. by anethema · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't really understand this. Is any part of Facebook based in Canada? If not, how are they subject to our tighter privacy laws?

    I can't see how they would be.

    --


    It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
  19. Of course profit trumps privacy... by Bullfish · · Score: 2, Funny

    and why should Facebook tell you what they are doing? That would give away a competitive edge.

    Stupid Canadians are so un-American.

  20. Just cut out Canada... by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If this 'noise' becomes a problem for Facebook Inc. I suspect the simplest solution for them will be to simply lock out Canada. The market here in Canada is pretty small (population 33 million) and probably not really worth the effort. You could just say that in we're 'not accepting new users from Canada and in 90 days all Canadian accounts will be deleted.'

    1. Re:Just cut out Canada... by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I'm not sure Facebook would lock up 10% of its user bas.

      "Facebook [...] has around 70 million registered users worldwide - including around seven million Canadians."

      The math is more complicated than that, though. If the 7M hoseheads are high school kids with no spending power, or users that log in infrequently, then their value goes down - You can't just base it on numbers. My wife is a Canadian Facebook user who hasn't logged in in 2 months.

    2. Re:Just cut out Canada... by vajaradakini · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And how many users from other countries log in infrequently?

      Furthermore, how do you determine which users are Canadians? If I leave all my networks, I could be living anywhere in the world. If you go by IP addresses you'll be eliminating people who are just living in or visiting Canada, but not Canadians living or visiting abroad.

      --
      what's that now?
  21. Re:Don't use it then! by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It was always the information collected from other users that bothered me about Facebook. I signed up briefly in the early days, keen to see what all the fuss was about. Despite deliberately giving them almost no personal information about me, within a few days they practically had half my life story, generously volunteered by my friends with no doubt the best of intentions but certainly not my permission or consent. I deleted my account soon after joining, only to discover later that they don't really delete the information anyway.

    There doesn't seem to be much point suggesting on Slashdot that this is unreasonable, maybe even dangerous, behaviour, though: last time I just got heavily down-modded and told I should read some Ts&Cs page on an obscure URL that I was supposed to have found before signing up (which, as far as I could tell, was not even available to non-users at the time). I guess "information wants to be free" mentality trumps "identity theft can ruin your life" and "privacy is important" around here. :-(

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  22. Re:That's nice, and all by CodeBuster · · Score: 3, Insightful

    it is becoming more and more apparent that governments don't care where the website comes from. They might not like it, but there is not much that they can do about it unless they want to cut off trade, end normalized diplomatic relations, or go to war (not really a viable option anymore these days). They can block the website in question, but that will probably be the end of it.

    but it's not like you can throw rubbish over the neighbour's fence and get away with it so easily on the Internet. Sure you can. What are they going to do about it? Facebook is an American corporation with (as far as I know) no business operations in Canada. The Facebook executives just have to avoid entering Canada personally and never invest any capital there. The De Beers diamond cartel thumbed its nose at the United States for decades in just this way and their executives simply avoided visiting the United States. Canada can try and block Facebook, ala the great firewall of China, but that is about it.
  23. Re:That's nice, and all by jo42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Borders, that is nations, states, etc. are all people-made creations.

    What people can, in their capacity for infinite stupidity, make, they can, in their capacity for reasonable amounts of wisdom, unmake.

  24. Re:That's nice, and all by 1u3hr · · Score: 2, Insightful
    So, need I actually abide by laws of other countries if my Website is hosted in the USA and I am a citizen of the USA living in the USA? If so, which countries? What happens if I don't and just ignore their BMCing.

    Nothing will happen to you. Unless, like Facebook, you have 7 million members in Canada, take advertising money from Canadian customers and thus have millions of dollars in cashflow passing through Canadian banks, then you might have to take notice if you break laws relating to how you use the information you get from these Canadians.

  25. Re:That's nice, and all by ericspinder · · Score: 4, Funny

    it's not like you can throw rubbish over the neighbour's fence and get away with it so easily on the Internet. Have you ever seen Usenet?
    --
    The grass is only greener, if you don't take care of your own lawn.