Slashdot Mirror
Facebook's New Terms of Service
An anonymous reader writes "Chris Walters writes about Facebook's new terms of service. 'Facebook's terms of service (TOS) used to say that when you closed an account on their network, any rights they claimed to the original content you uploaded would expire. Not anymore.
Now, anything you upload to Facebook can be used by Facebook in any way they deem fit, forever, no matter what you do later. Want to close your account? Good for you, but Facebook still has the right to do whatever it wants with your old content. They can even sublicense it if they want.'" Oh no! Now they'll be able to license your super flair goblin poke 25 tag history!
So why the drama?
How will they get agreement from current users? Does the TOS pops out the next time they login during the implementation?
How exactly do they define "User Content"? It seems that's pretty important.
Also - how well do these draconian EULAs hold up in court? Has there been a landmark test case yet? If their definition of "User Content" is a log of absolutely everything the user has uploaded/done then surely this must infringe on the user's right to privacy.
IANAL, but could someone, even if YANAL, please tell where this would come in under the UK's Data Protection Act?
Surely they can't keep such information if you want it to be removed.
I recall some time back on /. , when another social networking site (which I can't recall the name) did something like this. A fellow slashdoter comes up with an interesting approach by slowly replacing the contents with false data instead of deleting the account. I think that would work well providing the site does not maintain old archives.
Who cares if Facebook can technically now use whatever you post forever. So could anyone who archived the page, or even took a screenshot. Not to mention that Facebook really aren't going to have the slightest interest in the average user, nor in using their content if and when they leave the site.
If that's true, then I'd like to know why they added that into the TOS. Why claim the rights for something they supposedly don't even want?
...I've always asked those I know who are FB'ers; why? I can see the curiosity factor in looking for people that you know who have put their lives on Facebook for the viewing pleasure (i.e. to get laughed at) of others, but what in God's name goes through a person's mind when they rationalize this being a good idea? We are a very mixed up society where we'll scream bloody murder about our privacy rights being violated only to turn right around and willfully divulge our entire lives on FB and sites like it. I firmly believe that it's only a matter of time until someone writes a FB plug-in for the new Google Maps mobile locator function so that your FB 'friends' can know where you're at every minute of the day. The human condition is apparently hell-bent on suicide.
I'm curious how they can be sure it is you in the picture given the look of the full costume.
That's where the power of social networking comes into play. If a bunch of other people have pictures of him in the KKK costume and tag it with his name, it verifies that he was the one running around in the costume. Now, apparently there are ways you can try to remove your name from other people's pictures, but I don't know the specifics of it or how much of a pain it is. (I've managed to avoid using Facebook so far--I started to sign up once about a year ago but was instantly turned away when they said "Give us your email name/password so we can go through your address book". Yes, I realize it was optional, but I just didn't like the fact that they were asking in the first place.)
This guy's the limit!
Not to mention that Facebook really aren't going to have the slightest interest in the average user, nor in using their content if and when they leave the site.
Exactly. The people that really should be worried about what they put on there are those that stand to lose from the property they use to gain, ie corporations or entertainment personalities. I see this as a good thing. I find it annoying that grass-roots people form communities that later get raided by corporations looking to exploit and plunder them. I find it goofy when corps redirect you to "Go look us up on Facebook/MySpace/etc."
We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
On the face of it, this policy makes sense if FB realized that they could not assure timely clean-up when somebody quit. Too much risk of being sued.
Avoidance of lawsuits is almost certainly the reason for their policy of taking ownership of anything posted to FB. It is an easy way, and perhaps the only way, of assuring that they can kill stuff that needs to be removed without being hassled with nuisance suits.
I don't see any way of running something like FB without these kinds of policies. The only surprising thing here is that FB didn't realize it needed ownership forever until recently.
Who needs Big Brother when your friends will give for free all the pictures anyone would ever need to get you in trouble?
Before they let all the little highschool pukes join.
They have myspace for that. that's where they should've stayed and that's where they belong.
Stupidity only gets you so far, then you've gotta try
That's been the rule of the Internet for nearly two decades.
Is that why at the bottom of slashdot it says "Comments are owned by the Poster."?
With respect to text or data entered into and stored by publicly-accessible site features such as forums, comments and bug trackers ("SourceForge Public Content"), the submitting user retains ownership of such SourceForge Public Content; with respect to publicly-available statistical content which is generated by the site to monitor and display content activity, such content is owned by SourceForge. In each such case, the submitting user grants SourceForge the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, transferable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, and display such Content (in whole or part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed, all subject to the terms of any applicable license.
They MUST have that right, otherwise you could sue them for posting your comments, and your comments stay INDEFINITELY. If you delete your Slashdot account, your comments still stay archived online, so exactly what's so evil about the new ToS?
How does Burger King know you've unfriended someone?
Some pornography company sublicenses photos of one million girls in bikinis and their contact info from Facebook. They then send something like the following letter to the girls:
"Recently, for inclusion in our published material, we purchased the rights to the enclosed photo you licensed to Facebook. We were concerned that you may not want to be included, so we are giving you the chance to opt-out. We need only a payment of $50 to cover the amount we paid Facebook and administrative costs. If you do not want to pay and wished to be included in our published material, you will be featured in our "Skanky Bikini Amateurs" collection on our website. Thank you."
You joke about this, but FB was using under-aged girls in suggestive poses in an Eharmony ad. They removed them after being informed, but it shows they have some QC issues in marketing and legal.
I wasn't joking. I just got moderated that way.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
Having been online in one form or another for 27 years, I think it's safe to disregard allegations of ignorance. I've watched online communities come and go for decades. In that time I've learned that small, focused communities tend to have better longevity than those which attempt to be all things to all people. Facebook will be supplanted by someone or something that doesn't try to take over the world.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!