Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Scrambles To Contain ToS Fallout
Ian Lamont writes "Anger over Facebook's ToS update has forced the company to scramble. Yesterday, a spokesman released a statement that said Facebook has never 'claimed ownership of material that users upload,' and is trying to be more open to users about how their data is being handled. Mark Zuckerberg has also weighed in, stating 'we wouldn't share your information in a way you wouldn't want.' Facebook members are skeptical, however — protests have sprung up on blogs, message boards, and a new Facebook group called 'People Against the new Terms of Service' that has added more than 10,000 members today."
As long as they promised, there's nothing to worry about, right?
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
Its enormously popular, and (to some) provides a lot of value... and its free. What did you THINK they were going to do with the info you have up there ? It's a massive social engineering/data mining study, and you're taking part in it.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Facebook Privacy Change Sparks Federal Complaint
For those who don't like long reads: Promises aren't enough. EPIC wants it reversed, and is filling a Federal Trade Commission complaint.
--
# Canmephians for a better Linux Kernel
$Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.net";
Dont we have this discussion about once a year?
I remember the exact same thing going down with Flikr, Myspace, Youtube... Of course I dont agree with the wording and implications of the new TOS but can anyone point me to an example where any of these sites have commandeered content and used it nefariously? Microsoft maybe once?
---- The real Slashdot is still here. You just have to browse at -1 to read the comments.
This isn't anything new. I used to use facebook somewhat and posted a few things to it until I caught wind of their TOS. They essential claimed at least partial ownership of anything posted to their site at the time and I didn't feel as though it was a fair shake. I essentially stopped using it at that point.
My account is still active and every few months I check it and add anyone that I'd care to have contact information for. Essentially it's a glorified rolodex for me, with the added bonus that other people can find me. Personally, if I wanted to talk with someone I'd rather call them up and have a cup of coffee or a meal instead of sending little messages back and forth. Technology is a fairly big part of my life. I work with it, play with it, and use it for research. I don't really feel it should be a big part of my social life, however.
Maybe I'm just a luddite in that regard, but I prefer face to face meetings over anything else that we've developed over the last hundred years.
Here's a link to this group:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=77069107432
Gotta get me one of these!
Don't forget, it's not unified protest either. There'll be a dozen groups "protesting" the same thing because someone didn't think about using the search feature.
If you don't believe me, look for groups against duplicate groups.
I'm torn. I would never join Facebook, but now I want to so I can be part of this group. Is there also a group for people who will never join Facebook?
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
I only use myspace, gmail + other google services, LinkedIn, and twitter. They certainly don't fit your description, so I'm good.
pants = British for rubbish
I yanked my photos off and I won't be putting up any more. Facebook is a reasonable place to stay in touch with friends as long as you have your privacy settings locked down, but other than that... forget it. Their backpedaling is just ridiculous. Want to make a statement? Then change the policy. Or give at least an opt-out for "No, I do not wish to grant Facebook any rights to my copyrighted materials". They can say "well, that's not really what we mean" all they want. The policy is pretty clear... post a photo or video on Facebook and they claim they can do whatever they want with it now and forever.
This is a pretty reasonable review of the various policies of social media sites. http://amandafrench.net/2009/02/16/facebook-terms-of-service-compared/
I'll continue to post my images to flickr (lower resolution of course)... but certainly not to Facebook any longer.
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
You posted a comment on slashdot, with your homepage set to techiehelplist.com, which a whois shows is registered to a Jamie B*****n with complete address in a state south of Idaho. It took less time to find that out than it took to type this comment. (If it's _not_ you, it's a pretty good start).
I don't know how to commit digital seppuku myself, but I think you're doing it wrong ;-P
(all in fun)
I think Gmail is the same; do they provide a way to export your email so that you can upload it to some other provider? Yeah, I didn't think so.
You mean like by using IMAP or POP?
I'm thinking this is the biggest reason for the ToS change. Rick Sanchez is on CNN every weekday between 3-4PM. Those of you that have seen his show knows that he takes questions from people on Facebook, Twitter and MySpace. I posted a question on Rick Sanchez's facebook page and was watching the show and *BAM* there is my full name, picture, and question live and full screen on CNN. The question was answered by the 3rd most powerful congressman in America. I never received any notice that they were going to post it and I've been trying for days to get a copy of the episode for my own collection. Rick won't reply to my messages and I haven't been able to get a copy going the suggested route by CNN through a company that handles purchasing episodes for them. They won't reply either... Go figure.
I'm reminded of a comment from a previous story, about how it takes strong leadership to manage company lawyers, who will otherwise go on a paranoid spree about their particular fears.
These companies employ lawyers to produce contracts that excuse them any liability and grant them infinite rights "just in case", and then get very surprised when users actually take them seriously. "But we wouldn't really do that!"
Clue: tell your lawyers what you ACTUALLY need and want, don't just let them fill in the gaps with their imaginations.
For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert. - Arthur C. Clarke
I think you're confusing GMail with Hotmail or perhaps Yahoo. GMail has free IMAP or POP, Hotmail has their own particular brand of lock in and Yahoo forces you to pay for the privilege of POP access to your own data.
I always wondered where this setting was...
It now has the old behavior, though it retains the acknowledgement that archived copies may still exist on Facebook's servers (which is more than reasonable, just so they don't claim a license to use those archived copies for anything they please.)
End of story for now.
Though sooner or later they're going to abuse their monopoly in a substantial way. Oh well.
Am I the only one who read the article?
That makes sense to me.
It appears, on the surface, that the old ToS is back in effect; the ToS page is dated September 23, 2008.
It does bring to mind a new question. If you delete content and thus revoke Facebook's omnipotent rights to your now-deleted content, how does Facebook ensure that the content is no longer used by those sub-licensors? I can appreciate the need to spell out that Facebook is going to make copies of posted content as part of serving up Web pages, spreading server load, backups, etc., but how about not going any farther than that?
Maybe if Facebook drops the terms that they claim the right to use posted content for other commercial purposes (in particular sub-licensing) I may consider giving it another try; but otherwise, forget it. The bright spot in all this is that it has (finally) awakened me to really read the ToS when setting up accounts on websites like this.
Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
Why is it so hard for these companies like Google and Facebook, to maintain a non-sleezy TOS? It seems like they start out good- user-oriented when they're small, but as they grow they just start to say screw the user, we need to make money.
I like Plaxo.com's terms of service and privacy policy. They don't seem to have trouble outlining a policy for this situation:
"Changes to Your Information are typically executed immediately. For example, if you terminate your Plaxo account, your account immediately becomes inaccessible and all Your Information within your account is completely removed from the Plaxo servers. Please remember that if you have shared Your Information with other Members, they may retain such shared information in their accounts notwithstanding your decision to terminate your Plaxo account."