Facebook Reverts ToS Change After User Uproar

rarel writes "CNN and other media outlets report that Facebook reverted their TOS update and went back to using the previous one. 'The site posted a brief message on users' home pages that said it was returning to its previous "Terms of Use" policy "while we resolve the issues that people have raised."' Facebook's controversial changes to its Terms of Service, previously commented on Slashdot, included a mention that (users) 'may remove (their) User Content from the Site at any time. ... However, (they) acknowledge that the Company may retain archived copies of (their) User Content,' triggering a massive uproar from users and privacy groups."

Comments

huhu

[softwave]

I'll just stick to Friendface, thank you very much!

Re:huhu

[jetsci]

This whole thing taught me something; if I want to maintain my privacy I need to stop trusting online communities. That means minimal info associated with my Slashdot account, no identifiable information on my Facebook page, no references to my personal life on my blog/website, etc. It really becomes a question of what can we do online anymore without having our privacy violated. I want to be able to register with my real name, maybe put up a few photos but then some giant like Facebook goes and oversteps their boundaries...*sigh*

Re:huhu

[barncha]

Slashdotted! How am I meant to keep in touch with my tri-male-Liverpuddlian bit-on-the-side named emma now?

Re:huhu

[Mascot]

If you want to maintain privacy, keep your life private. That's not rocket science. If you put anything personal online on public sites, obviously people are going to *gasp* know personal things about you. It's no different than standing on a street corner yelling about your sex life. If you don't want people to know, don't fucking tell them.

I fail to see how this really relates to the issue at hand though. None of what you say would be any better protected with the old TOS than this new one. What you're talking about occurs when you put stuff on your page, not when you delete it. True, the new TOS is bollocks in that Facebook claims to retain rights even if you delete content, but the damage you are talking about already occurred so I don't get your point.

Re:huhu

[mdwh2]

So telling anyone anything is equivalent to yelling about it on a public street? I don't think so.

I hope you don't use email - after all, if that information goes through a company's servers, it's fair game for them to do what they like with it, as you might as well have published it on the front page of the news right?

(If you're going to say that email isn't a "public site", well, neither is facebook - access to information can be restricted to only certain people, just like with email.)

Re:huhu

[poetmatt]

The other reality of this concept is "you can never make things as private as you want them to be", so you can either be careful and leak minimal amounts which are more than you want or be open and leak more than you want.

Notice the trend here?

It's just reality that unless you live in a bunker that has armed guards, people are going to have plenty of ways to keep track of your life if they desire. Trying to maintain privacy invites the opposite.

The moderate best you can hope for is hiding things in plain sight. That's the only way people don't take notice of things.

Re:huhu

[MrNaz]

That's just the point. Facebook's TOS would have allowed them to take your previously private email-like data and published it wherever they felt would be profitable.

Re:huhu

[Ethanol-fueled]

Trying to maintain privacy invites the opposite.

How so? Unless you're walking around in sunny weather wearing a trench coat and a ski mask screaming, "Hey, everybody! Don't look at me!"

I use my friend's supermarket "club" card to receive discounts and the fraud police haven't yet banged down my door. I don't pay for porn or keep it on my computer. My MySpace account never had my real last name or birthdate and it hasn't had any real information for years so even the archives would be worthless to a snoop or a data-miner.

On gossip: It's going to happen, but being vague about one's personal life dosen't always mean somebody's hiding dark secrets to be uncovered. Nosey people usually take that to mean that the person in question simply has a boring life which is not worth uncovering.

Re:huhu

[steelfood]

Problem isn't you putting up your info, problem is all of your friends and family putting things up about you or with you in it. You can't maintain any semblence of privacy anymore if you wish to socialize.

I haven't touched facebook since they first started advertising over the I2 Direct Connect hub, and yet, there's still a plethora of information about me, most of which is completely insecure.

Re:huhu

[BrokenHalo]

Trouble is, while the social networking site is owned and operated by commercial interests, using proprietary software, there is not one user who can be guaranteed a fair deal. If anything, the TOS they have withdrawn are considerably less invidious than the much-publicised arbitrary closing off access to legitimate users' accounts with no right of appeal.

I can see benefits of the use of Facebook (and my wife uses it all the time as a means of keeping in sync with her postgrad Uni cronies), but I just hate the idea of putting any of my information (quotidian as it probably is) into their hands. So my response to anyone who asks is "I don't do Facebook".

Re:huhu

[poetmatt]

The more secretive someone is, the minute anyone takes notice, people will take far more notice. It's like walking down the street with a newspaper that has an envelope hidden inside vs having a package hidden under a jacket when it's clear you're smuggling it. One will get a hell of a lot more attention than the other.

Using someone else's club card has 0 to do with privacy nor is it even an accurate comparison. However, they are tracking your "friend" for using that card. Maybe you should read this article for some understanding. What makes you think that free porn for example, doesn't track you? Do you even read the TOS? what makes you think that if people wanted, they couldn't misconstrue your data to show the opposite of your sexuality, for example? How about publicizing it where it could cost you a job? This stuff is childs play compared to the destructive work someone can do.

Online privacy issues are easy to sniff out, I have been helping my friend write his thesis about it for law school.

Gossip is not the same as being nosey, and this has nothing to do with gossip. There are more people nosey than you can spot, because thats anonymity in general. Trying to stop that would be like thinking you can track all the anonymous cowards on slashdot.

Re:huhu

[JCSoRocks]

Facebook? Friendface? Nah, it's all about NotADouche these days.

Re:huhu

[Jason Levine]

There were two other points to their TOS change, besides the "rights continue past the closing of the account" that got people riled up:

1. Facebook could sell your uploaded content (including writings, photos, etc) to third parties.
2. Facebook didn't notify users of the TOS change. Instead, you "accepted" the change by continuing to use the service even if you didn't know that the terms had changed.

Combine this with Facebook shutting down accounts for certain actions (like posting breastfeeding photos) and you could get the following situation:

1. User logs in, is unaware that the TOS has changed.
2. User uploads photo to Facebook.
3. Facebook deems photo inappropriate, closes down account.
4. Facebook takes content from the closed account (remember, they own rights to it past account closure) and sell it to an ad agency without the user's approval or notification and without the user/copyright holder being compensated.

Don't like it? Well, you can't take them to court because the TOS binds you to Mandatory Arbitration and who do you think is going to win that? You? Or the company that chooses and pays the arbitrator? (If you answered that you would win, I've got a bridge to sell you.)

Re:huhu

[jetsci]

According to the GP its best we just not use any service. I want to use Facebook to keep in touch. I don't want them keeping/using that data. Period. Same as registering for a Slashdot account, they have my email - I COULD use a throw away but I'd rather not - I expect them not to use or abuse it.

Re:huhu

[Mascot]

We're talking about a very specific change in their TOS. From them deleting stuff when you remove your page, to them retaining it.

I cannot see how that change was relevant to anything in the post I was replying to.

Re:huhu

[Mascot]

I haven't used it, ever. Not out of any privacy concerns, I've just never seen any value in it for me.

Re:huhu

[Mascot]

I didn't say it was best not to use any service. I said that if you do, then that data is "out there". If you post something in a public journal entry, you've already exposed that information. This change in TOS doesn't change that.

If you meant to say something else in the post I replied to, I misunderstood you.

If, for example, Facebook previously promised to protect and never touch any private journal entries, and this TOS changed that to "we reserve the right to sell your private entries", then your post makes more sense to me.

Re:huhu

[raynet]

5. If the photo contains persons, the ad agency won't buy the photos without a signed model release, or if they do, you (or the person in the photo) can sue them.

Re:huhu

[sandysnowbeard]

It's not just about privacy, it's about intellectual property. Before, facebook made claims to our content, which was hard to swallow. Now they're saying that their claim extends even after WE'VE deleted said content. For we who post pieces of photography, art, writing, etc. on facebook to share them, this changes the game.

Secondly, you're making the assertion that privacy is all or nothing, which is a fallacy. By showing the family jewels to my wife, I am not implicitly accepting some EULA to show them to the world. Maybe the neighbors will get a glimpse, but that's their good fortune. You know, we HAVE the right to ask for privacy from those who provide services to us. If they don't comply, we have the right to decline their services. This Facebook brouhaha is a perfect example.

Re:huhu

[Thinboy00]

In Soviet America, free porn watch YOU!!!

Re:huhu

[Mascot]

It's not just about privacy

I didn't say it was. I was just responding to someone talking about privacy.

I also did not say privacy was all or nothing. I said that if you put something "out there", then that's it. You've done it. There's no taking it back even if you delete it from the specific service you first published it on.

As far as I could tell, the issues raised in the post I responded to weren't impacted by the new TOS. That's all I was trying to say.

To be clear: I'm not saying the new TOS doesn't seem insane. I was simply responding to what was said in the post I replied to. Nothing more, nothing less.

Re:huhu

[Jason Levine]

Ad agencies have used photos without model releases in the past. See Virgin Mobile and the Flickr photo: http://www.switched.com/2007/09/21/virgin-mobile-steals-teens-flickr-photo-for-ad/ If they're caught, they'll settle for some undisclosed sum and then go right back to buying photos from Facebook.

Re:huhu

[raynet]

Yes they have, but usually they do make sure they have all required rights for the photo before using it, or atleast we did when I worked in an ad agency. Just forgetting to get the model release, even if nothing bad happened, was enough to get you fired.

Re:huhu

[Haoie]

Exactly. It's the same sort of logic as putting up photos of you committing some crime online, then expecting not to get caught.

And don't say it doesn't happen!!

Re:huhu

[aleph42]

If you want to maintain privacy, keep your life private. That's not rocket science. If you put anything personal online on public sites, obviously people are going to *gasp* know personal things about you.

Except any idiot with a camera can then put a photo of you on *his* facebook profile. So you can either live alone, or try to forbid all your friends from using ther cameras when you're around. Good luck and screw you, respectively.

Now of course this has nothing to do with this news piece, in which facebook claimed copyright on your photos, even after canceling your account.
We all know that what has been on the web can never be taken back; and people's reaction seem to be mostly an awekening to that. But still, people who signed on facebook had an expectation that facebook would be nice on that point, and they rightfully reacted to this breach of trust.

The really interesting thing here is that enough users had a reaction on a privacy issue (which is rare), and that the company acted on that reaction (rarer); which is a nice precedent. Of course in a perfect world, all such eulas should have as a standard clause that the website will not attack your privacy if it can avoid it.

Re:huhu

[Capitalisten]

- if this happens in the USA. Other places may (and do) have a more relaxed law regarding this and those photos would be perfectly good to use.

Re:huhu

[Anonymous Coward]

.. except in the case where a TOS that you may have implicitly agreed to contains model release language..

Re:huhu

[mdwh2]

Well perhaps - I was just responding to your claim that posting on Facebook was "no different than standing on a street corner yelling about your sex life".

Although I can see how it relates to privacy, among other things - if they have the right to republish and even relicence material you upload. The reason why the change in the ToS was important was that at least before, you could immediately stop them from doing this simply by closing the account (this fact would also probably make them less likely to do so, in the first place).

You also have to take into account that circumstances change - perhaps when you're a student, you don't care about your mad photos being on Facebook, but you do when you start applying for jobs. Before, you could always end your account, but not with the new ToS.

Re:huhu

[Anonymous Coward]

you are cool. i like you. and agree.

Re:huhu

[Khyber]

"Don't like it? Well, you can't take them to court because the TOS binds you to Mandatory Arbitration"

Wanna bet? No ToS can take away the right to a jury trial. End of story.

Re:huhu

[zevans]

Maybe in the States. In the UK, you cannot write a contract against UK law. If I decide I signed the TOS under UK law, there's nothing Facebook can do about it. It WILL go to UK court and the LAW dictates the outcome.

Which is why I think it's a pity they chickened out; I was quite looking forward to the first hilarious court case where the entire TOS would be thrown out as an invalid contract.

Re:huhu

[ncmathsadist]

Because I post an item publicly, I do not surrender my copyright rights to it. Otherwise, artists displaying their paintings publicly would be authorizing their unlimited duplication for the profit of others. I don't think so.

Re:huhu

[lord_sarpedon]

I've personally taught it a few new tricks, you can thank me if you wish.

Re:huhu

[Mascot]

Well perhaps - I was just responding to your claim that posting on Facebook was "no different than standing on a street corner yelling about your sex life".

Oh, that. You don't think it is? I'm assuming, obviously, you making a publicly available post. I don't see the difference between that and yelling on a street corner. Well, I guess you'd have to use one hell of a megaphone to reach the same amount of potential listeners.

Before, you could always end your account, but not with the new ToS.

That was just my point. If you put "mad photos" of yourself on Facebook, that's it. You've done it. If you in half a year decide to remove your Facebook page, that doesn't make it as if you never published those pictures. They live on in caches, 4chan or whatever and personal hard drives forever. They don't just vanish. That the new TOS makes no difference in this respect, was precisely my point. If you think you may regret it, don't post it. If you do post it, you can only blame yourself when those images are still floating round in ten years time.

I didn't address the insanity of the new TOS (it really is ridiculous), I was just answering to the specific privacy concerns exemplified by the other poster. And for those, I see no difference.

Re:huhu

[Mascot]

Please quote where I stated you forfeit your copyright by posting something.

Right, we're done then.

Re:huhu

[mdwh2]

Oh, that. You don't think it is? I'm assuming, obviously, you making a publicly available post.

Which is a poor assumption. As I said: facebook isn't a "public site" - access to information can be restricted to only certain people, just like with email.

That was just my point. If you put "mad photos" of yourself on Facebook, that's it. You've done it. If you in half a year decide to remove your Facebook page, that doesn't make it as if you never published those pictures. They live on in caches, 4chan or whatever and personal hard drives forever. They don't just vanish. That the new TOS makes no difference in this respect, was precisely my point.

The bigger issue is Facebook republishing the information, which they could not do under the old ToS without breaking the law.

And "caches, 4chan or whatever and personal hard drives" are hardly the primary concern of data hanging around - that's not at all comparable to "still being on Facebook" (or published elsewhere by them).

Re:huhu

[ncmathsadist]

Were I reading correctly, Facebook was asserting ownership and unlimited rights to all posts on its page. They have since quickly backed down from this position owing to the irate response from their members.

Re:huhu

[Mascot]

I'm sure you read that correctly. But you didn't read it in my post, which is what you were replying to.

Re:huhu

[bandmassa]

Most likely in the form of, "...60% of our male members have reported (or joked about) erectile dysfunction, while 80% of our female members claim to have actually experienced their partner suffer from it. In a case study, MrNaz...", to a pharmaceutical company looking to invest in viagra. Yes, I do find it funny. Do you think your bank keeps customer data completely private? Your doctor? For every TOS, there's a loophole. For every privacy statement, a way of aggregating the data which makes it legally saleable. Protect your privacy by all means, everybody should actively seek to do so, but don't ever for a second believe there isn't something about you, that if a company wants that data, they can't have it, even without anonimity. Even if you don't use public fora.

Re:huhu

[Jason Levine]

You can go to a judge but chances are he would say to enter into arbitration like your "contract" (the TOS) says. After arbitration, you can decide to appeal to a real court, but - as the Consumerist puts it:

I'm going to appeal the decision to a real court.

No you're not, because:

In all states but California, there are no records kept of the arbitration, so it's impossible to appeal.

The deference that the Supreme Court has extended to arbitration has meant judges usually won't even overrule unethical or blatantly wrong judgments.

A study of fifty-two arbitration clauses that are in typical consumer contracts found that forty of them describe the arbitrator's decision as final or non-appealable, and the only five agreements that allowed appeal simply provided for a new arbitration.

Oh, I'm sure that this will last.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Unless team facebook is a bunch of utter morons, they knew that changing the TOS was likely to cause a stir(and, even if it didn't, it would cost a few lawyer hours). So, clearly, they had some reason for wanting to make the change. I'm guessing that that reason, whatever it is, didn't just vanish.

They'll probably just wait for the fuss to die down, reword it a bit, and try again. Outrage fatigue sets in quickly, as do acceptance, rationalization, and even embrace of the status quo.

Re:Oh, I'm sure that this will last.

[Firethorn]

Never underestimate the ignorance of many lawyer types. That's why you often get TOS and such that are so bad - lawyers, not having to fight against the other side's lawyers, tend to write things in their own favor, using simple, broad, ultimately overreaching terms. Still in legalize, of course, so you need a lawyer to understand the suckers.

Re:Oh, I'm sure that this will last.

[nettdata]

Never underestimate the ignorance of many lawyer types.

Or their ability to find BS stuff to do in order to validate their existence.

I won't even tell you about the lawyers I've had to battle (in 2 different corporations) because they wanted a complete list of all of the Open Source libraries and associated copyrights, BEFORE we even started the project.

They'd heard all about this "Open Source" thing and how evil it could be, after all, and wanted to protect the company.

They wouldn't green light the project until we provided that list, and yet we didn't even really know what we were building for them, never mind what we were using.

The nice thing, though, was that we picked every POSSIBLE library that we could find and submitted them and their copyrights for their analysis/aproval.

We had 4 developers spend an entire week doing that. At the client's expense.

The end result was that the lawyer eventually backed down on their request, but not until after we outlined all of the expenses incurred as a result of their initial request.

The owner of that company canned the lawyer shortly after that.

But that was still a solid week of wasted time that I'll never get back.

Re:Oh, I'm sure that this will last.

[pbhj]

The management noted that Facebook would be, what was it, the 8th largest country in the world by population .. so it's obviously a marketing ploy to get lots of attention, then change the ToS to a socialist/collaborative (OSS-like) model as a pre-cursor to an uprising.

All hail Chairman Z!

Re:Oh, I'm sure that this will last.

[Culture20]

They'll probably just wait for the fuss to die down, reword it a bit, and try again.

Then they're doing a poor job of it; Posted in a huge section on the top of every page:

Over the past few days, we have received a lot of feedback about the new terms we posted two weeks ago. Because of this response, we have decided to return to our previous Terms of Use while we resolve the issues that people have raised. For more information, visit the Facebook Blog. If you want to share your thoughts on what should be in the new terms, check out our group "Facebook Bill of Rights and Responsibilities."

They're deliberately asking the enraged folk to weigh in on the new ToS. Hopefully they'll announce the change this time.

Re:Oh, I'm sure that this will last.

[genner]

They'll probably just wait for the fuss to die down, reword it a bit, and try again. Outrage fatigue sets in quickly, as do acceptance, rationalization, and even embrace of the status quo.

Meh....it won't be that bad.

Re:Oh, I'm sure that this will last.

[genner]

But that was still a solid week of wasted time that I'll never get back.

You got paid....not really wasted time....for you anyway.

Re:Oh, I'm sure that this will last.

[Bieeanda]

I saw this coming. Given that they probably haven't learned anything from the Beacon backlash (or the second one, after they tried to sneak it back in), I'm expecting a subtle change of wording and a new placement in the TOS at best.

Re:Oh, I'm sure that this will last.

[furby076]

I won't even tell you about the lawyers I've had to battle (in 2 different corporations) because they wanted a complete list of all of the Open Source libraries and associated copyrights, BEFORE we even started the project.

The nice thing, though, was that we picked every POSSIBLE library that we could find and submitted them and their copyrights for their analysis/aproval.

So wait, you are saying that a lawyer, who is not technically savvy, wanted information to help ensure the company was protected (maybe from a TOS that says something "use of this OSS for personal use is OK but for business use requires you to ....."). And he wanted this information BEFORE you started installing/using the software? Gee, I wonder why a lawyer would want to read a contract before someone, who is not a lawyer, agreed to use the product and thusly enter the company into the contract. So then you guys go overboard, because you act like this lawyer is evil; and according to you this is why the lawyer gets fired. So far the only thing I have read is: "blah blah blah....we are jerks...blah blah blah"

Not all lawyers are evil...I would wager the amount of evil lawyers to good lawyers is about the same ratio as the amount of evil programmers to good programmers - actually probably less since lawyers could be disbarred if they get caught breaking the law. He was doing his job - protecting the company. You may think you know everything about OSS TOS, though I doubt you have read every single TOS out there for all the software that you use, but you are no lawyer.

Next time try and be a team player. If I ever ran into a person like you and was in a position to give them a job it would never happen. I would rather give the job to someone who appreciates and believes in using the best product for the job (be it closed source or open source) and would help the legal team go through the TOS (and to let them know the information they REALLY need) to make sure the company does not get put into a detrimental contract.

Re:Oh, I'm sure that this will last.

[Anonymous Conrad]

So, clearly, they had some reason for wanting to make the change. I'm guessing that that reason, whatever it is, didn't just vanish.

The previous blog entry explains the reason: when you post your data it spills over to your friends accounts via inboxes etc. When you delete your account they don't want to have to hunt around all of your friends' and ex-friends' accounts to clean up all of that data, and they don't want to get in a legal mess by not cleaning it up.

I'm not sure I buy that completely: unless I use Facebook's messaging to send my email address say to a friend then it will only ever be stored against my record and deleting my record should clean it all up. And deleting all messages I created, and all notifications generated by my account should clean up the rest.

Re:Oh, I'm sure that this will last.

[TaoPhoenix]

"Ignorance"?

I forget which name goes with "Don't attribute to ignorance what can be attributed to malice".

We're in a time of AggressionOdds. If you GET the nasty clauses, your corp can have lots of fun. If the users "uproar", oh well, no one will care next month. Then they can try again.

Re:Oh, I'm sure that this will last.

[conlaw]

Never underestimate the ignorance of many lawyer types.

Two points here: first, no attorney I've ever met will spend billable time making changes to any agreement unless the client asks for a change. Second, sometimes some member of the client's staff, in an attempt to impress the boss, will come up with language that was used at his former employer and have it inserted in the contract. Then when the shit hits the fan, he'll try to blame it on the attorneys.

Re:Oh, I'm sure that this will last.

[Anonymous Coward]

Who keeps track of a websites TOS changes anyway? I'd be willing to bet the outrage was spearheaded by shills from another social networking application.

Astroturfing at its best.

Re:Oh, I'm sure that this will last.

[bwalling]

The nice thing, though, was that we picked every POSSIBLE library that we could find and submitted them and their copyrights for their analysis/aproval. We had 4 developers spend an entire week doing that. At the client's expense.

So, you knowingly and deliberately inflated your billing to your client by doing unnecessary work due entirely to your own conceit? You owe your client a refund.

Re:Oh, I'm sure that this will last.

[AbbyNormal]

..they had some reason for wanting to make the change..

  Free Nationwide Press Coverage?

Re:Oh, I'm sure that this will last.

[pcgabe]

You got a bad lawyer fired. That was a week well spent.

Re:Oh, I'm sure that this will last.

[QuoteMstr]

You got paid....not really wasted time....for you anyway.

There's more to life than money. Some of us want to do something useful or important with our time here on Earth. As Keynes said, in the long run, we're all dead.

Re:Oh, I'm sure that this will last.

[Cjstone]

There would also be the inevitable backups, caches, and the like that contain your personal data. It would be completely unreasonable to require Facebook to hunt through their daily/monthly/yearly backups (many of which would be off-site,) and delete the data of every user that decides to remove their account. In that context, the TOS change was merely a protective measure.

Re:Oh, I'm sure that this will last.

[Anonymous Coward]

But you planned the project ahead of time right? So you would've had a rough idea of the libraries needed, right? Then after he greenlit the ones you absolutely needed to get started, any new libraries could also be greenlit with less work (since you'll probably encounter few unique licenses).

I'm actually going to side with the lawyer on this one. Without the legal analysis beforehand, you could code the project with library licenses that your client doesn't want/can't use. Then you'll have to fix the code later, which will make it far more expensive than having resolved the issue up-front.

The lawyer could have been slightly smarter by instead giving you a list of approved licenses & non-approved licenses. Then any that don't fit into either would have to be submitted ahead of time when the need for them arises.

Re:Oh, I'm sure that this will last.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

The fact that you are apathetic does not prove that people who care more than you do are shills(though they might be).

Re:Oh, I'm sure that this will last.

[Anonymous Coward]

The project wasn't even defined yet. What would you give? Rant less think more.

Re:Oh, I'm sure that this will last.

[BrokenHalo]

I forget which name goes with "Don't attribute to ignorance what can be attributed to malice".

In this case, I suspect that Facebook might have actually been more or less genuine in their hamfisted attempt to make content thus promulgated more like email in terms of its "ownership".

What they are being disingenuous about is how they store your data (deleted != gone), and how easily it is retrieved by the resetting of a flag. There was an ugly reminder of this in a post on an earlier discussion... here it is.

Re:Oh, I'm sure that this will last.

[jo_ham]

Well, that *is* what the lawyer asked for, if you read the post.

He was just doing what was asked of him.

Re:Oh, I'm sure that this will last.

[Anonymous Coward]

As opposed to... getting a good lawyer fired?

Re:Oh, I'm sure that this will last.

[poot_rootbeer]

So, you knowingly and deliberately inflated your billing to your client by doing unnecessary work due entirely to your own conceit? You owe your client a refund.

RTFC. The unnecessary work was due entirely to the cluelessness of the client's legal counsel.

Re:Oh, I'm sure that this will last.

[genner]

You got paid....not really wasted time....for you anyway.

There's more to life than money. Some of us want to do something useful or important with our time here on Earth. As Keynes said, in the long run, we're all dead.

I think someone also said something about not wishing they had spent more time in the office before they die. This is true regardless of how stupid your job is.

Re:Oh, I'm sure that this will last.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, just like a lawyer he covered his own arse by picking every possible library in case it gets used.

Re:Oh, I'm sure that this will last.

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe if the client provided some information prior to this questioning...

They wouldn't green light the project until we provided that list, and yet we didn't even really know what we were building for them, never mind what we were using.

They needed to make sure their bases were covered, so that they would have access to the proper tools / libraries once the project was given. To me, it sounds like the company paid a paranoia tax, and got exactly what they paid for.

Re:Oh, I'm sure that this will last.

[Anonymous Coward]

...So, clearly, they had some reason for wanting to make the change. I'm guessing that that reason, whatever it is, didn't just vanish.

Probably, the reason is this is what they are already doing because it's the path of least resistance and they need to change the terms to reflect that before too many years go by.

Re:Oh, I'm sure that this will last.

[drew]

no attorney I've ever met will spend billable time making changes to any agreement unless the client asks for a change

That depends on the arrangement between the attorney and the "client". In a typical situation, you are correct. But if the lawyer is actually a salaried employee, then sometimes they have to sit around and find things to do to make their employer feel like their getting their money's worth by keeping them on salary. And although I haven't run into it personally, I believe there are some companies out their that employ lawyers by way of retainer agreements that would give the lawyers an incentive to use up a certain number of billable hours every month.

Re:Oh, I'm sure that this will last.

[Anonymous Coward]

They should note that backup copies and other 'remnants' remain behind even after deleting, but they should not retain any rights to use them. Any content they decide they want sell or use they should check to see if the damn original poster is still a member of Facebook. If they're going to be using someone else's work, they can take the 20 minutes to check their records of who originally posted it before using it.

Re:Oh, I'm sure that this will last.

[quarterbuck]

The way facebook explained this is like this:
There is the facebok messaging feature where you can send messages to your friends. When you do this there are 2 copies of messages made, one in your "outbox" and the other in the recipients "inbox". When you delete your account, only your copy of the message is deleted, the recipient still has access to the message you sent.
In effect, Facebook retains your messages even when you delete your account. Facebook wanted to make this niggle more public and asked their lawyers to do that. Apparently the lawyers wrote up a contract that said ALL the information is retained when you delete your account. Why they added the condition on copyrights, I never know.
Atleast facebook is blaming the lawyers for this.

Re:Oh, I'm sure that this will last.

[Anonymous Coward]

There's more to life than money. Some of us want to do something useful or important with our time here on Earth.

A job's a job's a job, though. Do you seriously expect to be able to go through life without ever having to waste a week on something you don't want to do, at work, but that you have to do anyway?

If so, I hate to pop your balloon, but it ain't gonna happen - the only way to make sure would be to never take on a job at all. Which is absolutely fine if you're really serious about "there's more to life than money" and all that, but for most people, it isn't feasible.

You WILL have to make trade-offs in life, unless you get extremely lucky - that's just the way it is, even if it's not fair, and even if you'd prefer for it to not be that way.

Re:Oh, I'm sure that this will last.

[Anonymous Coward]

The nice thing, though, was that we picked every POSSIBLE library that we could find and submitted them and their copyrights for their analysis/aproval. We had 4 developers spend an entire week doing that. At the client's expense.

So, you knowingly and deliberately inflated your billing to your client by doing unnecessary work due entirely to your own conceit? You owe your client a refund.

Not necessary a "knowingly and deliberately inflated" if the Lawyer "wanted a complete list" of all "POSSIBLE library" that can be used. Basically this is not the cast ff the lawyer insist on that list and not a "most likely library to be to used" list.

Re:Oh, I'm sure that this will last.

[Scrameustache]

The nice thing, though, was that we picked every POSSIBLE library that we could find and submitted them and their copyrights for their analysis/aproval. We had 4 developers spend an entire week doing that. At the client's expense.

So, you knowingly and deliberately inflated your billing to your client by doing unnecessary work due entirely to your own conceit?

No, due entirely to the lawyers' conceit.

Reading comprehension much?

Re:Oh, I'm sure that this will last.

[SterlingSylver]

There's more to life than money. Some of us want to do something useful or important with our time here on Earth.quote> You got a lawyer canned. You more than did your fair share of benefiting the human race. If the other 6-7 billion of us did the same, we'd start to make progress in controling the lawyer population. Remember, kids, have your lawyers spayed or neutered.

Re:Oh, I'm sure that this will last.

[JasterBobaMereel]

Car analogy

".... before you have a design spec for the car please specify the complete detailed part list and which suppliers you will be using, Oh and I don't actually know anything about software so I won't actually understand the list but I will look at the T&C's of the companies you will be buying from..."

It is equally ridiculous ... what parts do you need .. I don't know give me a spec and I 'll work out a reasonable list out BEFORE I start using them ....

Asking is not the problem it's the point of the design process he asked ....

Re:Oh, I'm sure that this will last.

[srmalloy]

Unless team facebook is a bunch of utter morons, they knew that changing the TOS was likely to cause a stir(and, even if it didn't, it would cost a few lawyer hours). So, clearly, they had some reason for wanting to make the change. I'm guessing that that reason, whatever it is, didn't just vanish.

If the reason for the change was to prevent them from having to do something manpower-intensive whenever a user leaves and closes their page, I can see the reason for it, but the TOS change was worded badly. For example, Facebook makes an advertising image that is a montage of user pages, one of which is User X's page. User X closes their Facebook page and deletes their content. Under the old TOS, Facebook would have to go through all of their promotional material every time a user left to make sure none of it contained any of that user's content. But a statement like "You grant Facebook the right to use your uploaded content for promotional purposes; if you remove your content, Facebook is not obligated to remove existing promotional material that incorporates the deleted content, but may not create new promotional materials with that content" is probably too clear for lawyers to be happy with; if the average person could understand all the material in a contract, we wouldn't need anywhere near as many lawyers, and they'd have to go find real jobs.

Re:Oh, I'm sure that this will last.

[The Moof]

The nice thing, though, was that we picked every POSSIBLE library that we could find and submitted them and their copyrights for their analysis/aproval.

That part of the gp's post sounds like they inflated the bill, and submitted more than what was requested of them. I see this happen periodically, typically used to give the client the finger via the bill.

Re:Oh, I'm sure that this will last.

[roystgnr]

"use of this OSS for personal use is OK but for business use requires you to ....."

By definition, a license that tries to say this is not open source.

Contrariwise, many closed source licenses do say something like this. Why wouldn't the lawyer ask for them too?

Gee, I wonder why a lawyer would want to read a contract

A license isn't a contract.

before someone, who is not a lawyer, agreed to use the product

Reading a license before using a product is a very good idea. Reading every license before even considering using any of a wide class of products, particularly when most of those products just use copies of a few of the most generous and standardized licenses in the industry, is a waste of time.

Re:Oh, I'm sure that this will last.

[Jawn98685]

So, you knowingly and deliberately inflated your billing to your client by doing unnecessary work due entirely to your own conceit? You owe your client a refund.

Not unnecessary. The consultant had been given no guidelines at all with which he might have reasonably limited the scope of his search for the requested documentation. He was given a demand for any and all such documentation. By what yardstick would you presume to make such a determination that seem to suggest the consultant should have "known" to make?

Re:Oh, I'm sure that this will last.

[dkf]

Unless team facebook is a bunch of utter morons

It doesn't do to exclude the possibility. Never underestimate the power of massed morons!

Re:Oh, I'm sure that this will last.

[Firethorn]

By definition, a license that tries to say this is not open source.

Hmm... from your link:

The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.

The parent probably wasn't meaning 'you can't use this in business', it was probably along the lines of software that's 'free for private use, but you have to pay $$ fee to use it commercially'.

Oh, and just because something isn't open source by the definition you posted, doesn't mean that it isn't advertised as 'open source' elsewhere.

Still, the lawyer could probably have waited until the design was to the stage of 'Okay, we're going to need a database system, SSH, SSL, a webserver, etc...'

Re:Oh, I'm sure that this will last.

[pfafrich]

The nice thing, though, was that we picked every POSSIBLE library that we could find and submitted them and their copyrights for their analysis/aproval.

But that was still a solid week of wasted time that I'll never get back.

Was it really wasted time? You got to spend a week doing a lot of research into the OpenSource eco-system. I guess thats given you some valuable knowledge, and you may even have even used some of those projects you have found.

Re:Oh, I'm sure that this will last.

[roystgnr]

'free for private use, but you have to pay $$ fee to use it commercially'

That *still* wouldn't fall under the open source definition; "you can't use this in business" was just shorthand. You can use any open source software commercially, and as long as you don't try to tack on extra restrictions you can even redistribute any open source software commercially. Red Hat's legal ability to charge money is the norm, not the exception.

Oh, and just because something isn't open source by the definition you posted, doesn't mean that it isn't advertised as 'open source' elsewhere.

This is true, and a very good point. OSI gave up on trademarking the phrase "open source" for enforcement purposes; about the best you can do is look for licenses on their approved list if you want something that's already been looked over by experts.

But that's probably not relevant to the anecdote at hand. Somehow I doubt that the soon-to-be-fired lawyer was just worried about Scilab's deceptive marketing but was totally cool with the Apache License and the GPL.

Re:Oh, I'm sure that this will last.

[Firethorn]

That *still* wouldn't fall under the open source definition;

Why wouldn't it? You pays your money; you gets to use it. The money is simply $0 for personal/non-commercial use.

Red Hat's legal ability to charge money is the norm, not the exception.

That's what I'm talking about. When using open source code for business/commercial purposes, you need to pay attention to the licenses because while many are completely free, many are only free for personal/non-commercial use. A fee needs to be paid for commercial use. The fact that the source still needs to be provided upon request if not shipped with the product doesn't enter into the financial part.

Somehow I doubt that the soon-to-be-fired lawyer was just worried about Scilab's deceptive marketing but was totally cool with the Apache License and the GPL.

Either he was looking to pile up billable hours reviewing the licenses and making recommendations or he was truly ignorant of how many open source projects are out there for how many different uses. This, of course, rests on the idea that things are as Scilab described them(I make similar disclaimers for court cases).

Re:Oh, I'm sure that this will last.

[nettdata]

Just to clarify some things, as it appears you're not that up to speed on how custom development contracts work.

This was a custom development job. We are talking about using core libraries, not finished products.

We were about to start with the discovery and business analysis phase of the project, as agreed to by the President and the VP that was championing the development.

We still didn't really know what it was that they needed us to build, but they had me spin up resources to work on the job so that we'd all be in the up-front meetings and be able to hit the ground running.

We didn't understand their business requirements, their budget, their limitations, timeframes, NOTHING. So we were in absolutely NO position to even start discussing what specific libraries were going to be used.

We were on a tight timeline (when aren't we?) and literally the day before we were to fly to the client, the lawyer inserts himself into the process, and raises a huge red flag to the president, and stops everything, demanding to not only proof-read the licenses, but to approve them before we use them. This was before our first BA meeting.

I tried to explain to him that we were in no position to understand what libraries or OSS we were going to use, because we had to move ahead with understanding the business first, but he refused to believe that.

I tried to talk to the President, but he had faith in the lawyer (his son-in-law), and refused to listen to us. The VP understood our situation, but his hands were tied.

I told the lawyer that we'd work with them on ensuring that all of the licenses that were attached to any software we were even thinking about using would be vetted and approved by him, but it'd be on an "as we figure out we need it" basis.

We didn't even know how they were planning on using the software at this point (internal use only, public web site, shrink-wrap, etc), so we didn't know what licenses were going to fit anyway.

He REFUSED to listen to reason, and claimed to understand application development better than we understood the law, and made a flat-out demand for the information.

I very clearly warned him of the unlimited scope of his request, and he said he didn't care.

I'd also spun up resources to start work on the project at the request of the President and VP, and there was no way in hell I was going to let them sit idle as a result of this, so I put them onto the task that was clearly demanded of me.

So yeah, I WAS trying to be a team player. I tried to educate the client about how to reasonably address their concerns, and how it was too early in the process to do so.

I also offered to just provide them with the major licenses out there that were the standards (GPL, Apache, etc), and he said "no, I need specifics".

So yeah, this lawyer was an idiot and an asshole, plain and simple. Condescending to boot. The fact he was working on getting his MBA might also explain a few things.

But I did everything in my power to deal with it in an effective manner in order to get the job done as effectively and efficiently for the client as I could, but he refused to allow it.

And I refused to take a 2 week hit on paying for my subs that would have sat idly by while that crap was worked out.

So yeah. Blow me.

Re:Oh, I'm sure that this will last.

[nettdata]

Actually, I had assigned resources to the project at the client's request, so instead of having them pay for those resources as they sat idly by doing nothing, or ME having to pay for them to do nothing, I put them to work doing the only work we were allowed to do on the project.

AS REQUESTED BY THE CLIENT.

So yeah, it might have been a dickish thing to do, but I did my best to NOT do it.

Re:Oh, I'm sure that this will last.

[nettdata]

A good lawyer has common sense and a sense of situational awareness.

This one had neither.

He refused to believe he was wrong, and we did exactly what he asked of us.

In the end, we gave him just enough rope to hang himself with.

He just had to take responsibility for his actions.

Re:Oh, I'm sure that this will last.

[nettdata]

But you planned the project ahead of time right?

No. We were about to start he business analysis phase of the project... literally step one.

We were totally in the dark about what they needed, technical/business requirements, etc.

All we knew is that it was going to be an Oracle-backed Java distributed app running on Sun.

And I'm not even kidding. That was ALL we knew.

Re:Oh, I'm sure that this will last.

[nettdata]

Not at all.

I've been doing app development for years, and work in a few OS projects myself.

I'm quite familiar with the various licenses, etc., required.

I've helped vet those licenses for Government implementations, as well as pay lawyers to draft contracts for custom licenses I need for my own software product.

The last thing I wanted to do was go about and mass download and extract any/all Java/Apache/JBoss libraries and licenses.

It was nothing but a colossal waste of time for everyone involved. It's just the client ended up paying for it.

Re:Oh, I'm sure that this will last.

[Walter Carver]

You are right but that lawyer didn't understood about software. You can see this from the request he mad. He had no place in that company. I think that's the point that the parent was making.

As if the terms weren't draconian enough...

[ahsile]

Making users agree that they could keep your content indefinitely was insanity. I guess we wait and see what their next version looks like after they 'fix' it.

Re:As if the terms weren't draconian enough...

[WmLGann]

So you're saying you don't want them to have backups of their systems?

Not being a facebook user I would find it amusing if a meteor took out their data center today and the site can't be restored on account of the ToS not allowing them to keep backups.

As in many cases with updated contracts (not even sure a ToS counts as a real contract), this is mostly just the paper being adjusted to reflect reality.

Re:As if the terms weren't draconian enough...

[superskippy]

I suspect that keeping your content indefinitely is what already happens, and they were merely trying to update the TOS to reflect reality. And besides, if you delete stuff from there, how are you ever going to know if all the copies have gone from their computers? And are you expecting them to go through all of their old backup tapes and delete your data?

It's also important to remember that Facebook is a hugely popular website that makes no money whatsoever. Their basic business model is to sell your privacy and give you in return the website. They haven't worked out how to do it yet, so you can expect more stuff you don't like from Facebook at some point in the future.

Re:As if the terms weren't draconian enough...

[ByOhTek]

They make money, just not by payment from the users.

They are loaded with advertisements.

Re:As if the terms weren't draconian enough...

[Anonymous Coward]

They are? I've never seen any.

Then again, I use Adblock so I wouldn't know.

Re:As if the terms weren't draconian enough...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see anything "draconian" about the terms. Realistic, I think, would be a better phrasing. Anyone expecting to have total control of their data *after* it has been disseminated to a network of almost 200 million... is smart?

Re:As if the terms weren't draconian enough...

[yodleboy]

They are loaded with advertisements
that's funny. i'm logged into my facebook account right now and after clicking through the various screens i have yet to see a single ad. that's in contrast to myspace, which likes to shove huge flash background advertisements for the latest lame movie all over the place.

the fact is this ToS was just putting in writing something they probably already did. with all the people demanding clear and transparent EULAs,ToS etc. it's ironic that when a company does the right thing, they get blasted for it.

if you're putting your information, content, whatever on a FREE website, you are agreeing to surrender some privacy. Don't like it? DON'T AGREE TO THE ToS and use these sites. All the people that made this such a shit-storm are free to move to some other social site that doesn't do the exact same thing. wait. there isn't one.

Re:As if the terms weren't draconian enough...

[Anonymous Coward]

theres always at least one asshole who has to chime in with "thar r ads? lolz i ues adblock"

Re:As if the terms weren't draconian enough...

[drinkypoo]

And besides, if you delete stuff from there, how are you ever going to know if all the copies have gone from their computers? And are you expecting them to go through all of their old backup tapes and delete your data?

This argument has been made repeatedly and every time I hear it, slashdot gets a little dumber.

Facebook has stated before that they cannot remove the information from their database. They are using some kind of custom store which apparently is missing features that every other data store has. This points to their amazing technical incompetence. The only reason they could not be able to remove data from the site is if the site is so poorly architected that if a piece of data goes missing it will break things. END OF LINE.

As for backups, this is an incredibly retarded assertion. Facebook does not need to retain backups in perpetuity. They need to retain them just long enough to make sure that anything they have done hasn't totally fucked the site (1 year max) and then they MUST BE DESTROYED. There is NO technical reason why the backups need to be maintained. If they cannot be overwritten then they must be recycled, burned, what have you.

With that said, anyone who uses facebook or any other site whose license is as draconian as theirs is already and gives them a bunch of data that they actually care about is a complete tool.

Re:As if the terms weren't draconian enough...

[MBGMorden]

That's what I was thinking. Saying that they will retain a copy of the data after it's deleted is only logical for any company that uses backup tapes. When done right at least some portion of those tapes aren't even on site, so it's nearly impossible to expect them to keep pulling them back to delete stuff every time a user removes it from their page.

Re:As if the terms weren't draconian enough...

[xtracto]

theres always at least one asshole who has to chime in with "thar r ads? lolz i ues adblock"

Mmmm, being this slashdot I am more inclined to say
"theres [sic] always at least one asshole who has to chime in with "oh noes! They are loaded with advertisements."

Re:As if the terms weren't draconian enough...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Alert, alert: Recursive Event Horizon detected. Recommend evasive action. Message Ends.

Re:As if the terms weren't draconian enough...

[mdwh2]

I see ads all the time - and more intrusive than many websites, as they sneak the adverts into things like feeds of what your friends are doing.

the fact is this ToS was just putting in writing something they probably already did. with all the people demanding clear and transparent EULAs,ToS etc. it's ironic that when a company does the right thing, they get blasted for it.

Not true - the wrong thing isn't necessarily having the data around on their servers, it would be saying they could republish, relicence and so on that information, even after the account was closed. AFAIK, they haven't done that (and moreover, if they tried, you'd be in a better position to argue copyright infringement, due to it not being in the ToS). But the new ToS allowed them to.

if you're putting your information, content, whatever on a FREE website, you are agreeing to surrender some privacy. Don't like it? DON'T AGREE TO THE ToS and use these sites.

Firstly, much of the problem is that people didn't agree to the ToS change - changing a contract retroactively is legally rather dubious. Secondly, even where a site has a right, equally, people have a right to inform others about it, and/or complain about it.

And if the site changes it's ToS back as a result, that's up to them as well. If people had just shut up as you suggest, then this wouldn't have happened.

Re:As if the terms weren't draconian enough...

[mdwh2]

And similarly it's okay to pirate, because who expects to retain control after publishing their data to millions of people?

Re:As if the terms weren't draconian enough...

[FallinWithStyle]

They are loaded with advertisements that's funny. i'm logged into my facebook account right now and after clicking through the various screens i have yet to see a single ad. that's in contrast to myspace, which likes to shove huge flash background advertisements for the latest lame movie all over the place.

While I agree that you have to take a suppository of ads every time you visit myspace, it is not hard to also find ads on facebook. If you click on pretty much any page other than "home", there is a bar on the right side of the page with a series of advertisements, as well as a link to purchase your own adspace on the website-- this includes those annoying flash animations.

Re:As if the terms weren't draconian enough...

[Anonymous Coward]

Facebook has stated before that they cannot remove the information from their database.

They are definitely *lying* about this. There's no such thing as 'cannot' for this sort of technical issue. For example, what if someone posts (say) a picture where they don't own the copyright, and the copyright owner is rich and litigious, follows the necessary takedown procedure etc. Facebook remove the copyright material from public view, but they still have *no right* to a private copy. The copyright owner gets a court order for them to remove it or pay some outrageous sum per day it remains (exact legal details not important; I'm sure the general principle applies). Then Facebook will suddenly find a way to remove it pretty damn pronto.

When Facebook say they cannot remove the information from their database, what they actually mean is it is currently an expensive/difficult/probably semi-manual process, and it would also cost them money to make it easier/more automatic.
If they really wanted to, they could at least create some sort of 'placeholder substitution' where any deleted content was replaced with a 'deleted by poster' message/picture; this would prevent deletions from breaking their crappy database structure.

Re:As if the terms weren't draconian enough...

[BrokenHalo]

Why are adblock users assholes?

Re:As if the terms weren't draconian enough...

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up, +1 Insightful.

Re:As if the terms weren't draconian enough...

[ByOhTek]

You've never seen a lot of things. That doesn't mean you don't know they exist.

However, you admitted to using Facebook!

*points* *laughs*

Re:As if the terms weren't draconian enough...

[ByOhTek]

Who said "oh noes!"?

I simply stated there were advertisements (and quite a lot if you aren't clever enough to block them). If you notice, the comment was regards to the income of Facebook, and not the irritation or lack thereof from the advertisements.

Re:As if the terms weren't draconian enough...

[Anonymous Coward]

.ad_capsule, .web_results, .share_hide_on_dialog, .social_ad, .sponsor, #home_sponsor
{ display: none ! important }

Re:As if the terms weren't draconian enough...

[Anonymous Coward]

Myspace doesn't backup accounts. Once they're gone, they're wiped.

"Remember Facebook"

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

An important precedent has been set. The uproar created by the community, including some people cancelling their Facebook memberships, caused the Terms of Service to be reverted. We must remember this. It should be a rallying cry: "Remember Facebook".

Re:"Remember Facebook"

[R2.0]

the scary thing is, I can't tell whether to mod this Insightful or Funny.

Well played, sir!

Re:"Remember Facebook"

[Anonymous Coward]

Um. Yeah. Except this part:

"Your continued use of the Facebook Service after any such changes constitutes your acceptance of the new Terms."

Both in the old and new terms of (mis)use, and I'll bet you any amount of money that it'll remain in whatever terms they and their lawyers come up with. It's a "get out of obeying our own rules free" card. The next time you log on to your Facebook account it could be under entirely new terms, NONE of which you actually -agree- with. But because you've signed in, you've implicitly agreed to whatever they tell you to. It doesn't matter how much user input they pretend to be putting into the process if they can reverse it on a whim and without notice, now does it?

Re:"Remember Facebook"

[blind biker]

I don't even have to remember Facebook - I still remember Facebook Beacon, and it wasn't pretty.

Facebook's policy seems to be: let's try to screw our customers as hard as possible - after all, what other way there is to see how much they'll take? Facebook reminds me of another company with a similar modus operando: Microsoft. Which, perchance, happens to be one of Facebook's largest investors.

Re:"Remember Facebook"

[HexOxide]

Would such a clause actually hold up in court? I just can't see how it possibly would, it's purely "You're damned if you do you're damned if you don't.

In this case, if you simply left, they kept all your content, if you wanted to delete your account, you need to log in to do so, thus accepting the new TOS, allowing them to keep all your content, I thought one of the conditions for a binding contract was that is was under no duress, and this clause appear to be inescapable.

Re:"Remember Facebook"

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't be able to tell you if the provision would hold up in court, I'm not a legal expert by any means. -However-, who is going to challenge them in court? What single user on Facebook besides Zuckerberg himself has enough financial clout to successfully take a Microsoft-backed company to court and -win-? It's the same thing with EULA's, they're counting on two things:

1) you don't read it
2) you can't afford to take them to court over it

Re:"Remember Facebook"

[Anonymous Coward]

What's amazing to me is that the website is still so popular considering all of the other crap they have tried and succeeded in doing.

Are we so quick to forget all of those nonsense apps and the lack of security measures, resulting in people who aren't on your "best friend list" being able to reach all of your information?

What about the cookie that logged all of your browsing "to serve better ads"?

What about the fact that in order to "truly" delete your account you need to lawyer up?
(this may not still be true, I recently shut down my account because I didn't like their privacy policies and ToS... best I can tell I don't show up on their site anymore)

Re:"Remember Facebook"

[Anonymous Coward]

It appears you were wrong.

Re:"Remember Facebook"

[furby076]

No it hasn't. This isn't the first time a company changed their terms of service and people moaned and cry. Stuff like that has been happening since before the net. The amount of people they will lose is a drop in the bucket. They may change it for now, but they will get what they want.

Then again, there is always the chance that they are doing this because they got feedback from some users requesting this. You know the users who get annoyed their friends messagse got deleted when their friends quit.

Re:"Remember Facebook"

[xtracto]

I agree. I was surprised to see the Facebook issue in the CNN international channel (unfortunately one of the only 2 English speaking channels here in Germany).

The fact that it got the attention from the mainstream press surprised me. I hoped things could go further to a class action lawsuit to test the "validity" of EULAs in general.

Although IANAL I believe that unfortunately it will take one of these big companies to make a precedent of how crazy and unenforceable are some of these license agreements.

Re:"Remember Facebook"

[linhares]

An important precedent has been set. The uproar created by the community, including some people cancelling their Facebook memberships, caused the Terms of Service to be reverted. We must remember this. It should be a rallying cry: "Remember Facebook".

Perhaps a better strategy is just to update their wikipedia page with this info, fully documented, and keep the fight in there. Companies *detest* criticism in wikipedia. It is, after all, their privacy exposed this time.

Re:"Remember Facebook"

[TheGratefulNet]

cancelling facebook?

given how this company thinks, I will never CREATE an entry for myself there. I've gotton by just fine (thanks) so far without FB and I think I've decided to 'give it a miss' and just not be part of this whole charade.

this is a good thing. I'm glad it caused people to think a bit. we need more of that.

Re:"Remember Facebook"

[Jason Levine]

You wouldn't be able to take them to court at all. You see, that same TOS forces you into mandatory arbitration. So Facebook would choose an arbitrator and you would need to travel to a state of their choosing to meet with the arbitrator that Facebook is paying. The arbitrator would then decide whose side to rule in favor of. Studies have shown that arbitrators rule in favor of the company over 90% of the time so I wouldn't put too much faith in getting a fair shake. And don't go crying to the courts, they've repeatedly upheld arbitrator clauses and judgments. As the Consumerist put it, it's the Worst Choose Your Own Adventure Ever: http://consumerist.com/5148154/mandatory-binding-arbitration-the-worst-choose-your-own-adventure-ever

Re:"Remember Facebook"

[quarterbuck]

Since we have a lawyer responding, could I ask you a question ? (I understand that even though you are a lawyer, this is not a legal advice since I did not pay you etc. - Just asking a question to an informed source)
Is it even legal to change site licenses retroactively ? Can you write up a contract that says that you accept any further changes in contract ?

Re:"Remember Facebook"

[davidsyes]

That's why you need to first PURGE or SUBSTITUTE your content before simply "cancelling" your account.

Replace the facts with nonsense, or free-domain content. That says you are rescinding their "access" and "display" of past content. Of course you can't take back email. I imagine, though, they'lll make it REALLY hard for you to dig up every post you've made, probably to make SURE it's onerous and not worth your time to "remove", say, 2,580 posts to numerous profiles.

They might end up following the Slashdot model, where once you post, you can't remove. "You should have proofread, or should have THOUGHT LONG AND HARD, YOU IDIOT/SUCKER/CASH COW"" is what they'll be thinking, or implying.

What needs to happen is someone needs to come up with a model that undermines facebook. An escrow service that holds the content, rather than a company that tries to claim ownership/access/distribution rights to it is needed. This way, when you NEED or want to remove ALL traces, or almost all traces, you should be able to simply nuke your stuff, except for matters related to criminal investigation, in which case, the law can access archives. But, for day-to-day purposes, no one lacking a court order -- not even IT -- should be able to locate the account, or resurrect it.

Also, if facebook cares about user privacy (i don't know if they offer or refer users to a tool/widget in the f/b applications portfolio), facebook would allow users to remove or alter their display name information so the users can visit the site nearly anonymously while on transit or in public places.

Second, if facebook cares, they'd allow users to sanitize/anonymize the faces and names of their friends. This would assure all IN facebook that stalkers or nosy/busybodies in the public who do NOT have a facebook account can't randomly victimize someone. ANYONE looking at facebook profiles and who is out to select a victim in that venue should be required to HAVE an account, not simply read over someone's shoulder and see a street address or cell phone number or alternate e-mail address or employer name.

I think that all the brains there in facebook are not as smart as most of us credit them to be.

Re:"Remember Facebook"

[thermian]

Would such a clause actually hold up in court? I just can't see how it possibly would, it's purely "You're damned if you do you're damned if you don't.

For a paid service? No. For a free service? Well, you'd have to explain why you started to use the service and added your content without bothering to read or understand the TOS.

The provider could probably get away with the justification of needing to finance the free system. In a way thats not a bad defence. If Facebook don't find some way of profitiing from their users soon, their little web 2.0 service is going to die the death of a thousand uninterested investors.

They're not alone in taking advantage of their users content. Go take a look at flickrvision. See all those geotagged photos that are being pushed out via the flickr API? Usernames, photo locations, and the photos themselves, free for anyone who wants them.

I wouldn't touch that service with a shitty stick, but obviously many people think its ok.

Re:"Remember Facebook"

[Anonymous Coward]

but their old TOS claimed ownership to all you posted anyway.
so what's the point?

Now

[Rinisari]

Now, we should all delete our accounts and threaten to sue Facebook if they don't remove everything we've ever uploaded, including messages and pokes and wall posts sent to other accounts.

That's all the new terms covered: "if you delete your account, we keep all of the stuff you uploaded, but simply mark it in accessible where appropriate so that messages, pokes, wall posts, and media contributed to groups stays in place." That would be a better way to phrase it, but, instead Facebook and every other company has to hide it in silly legalese which is purposefully ambiguous.

Re:Now

[furby076]

They also have a clause that allows them to change their TOS without notice to registered or non registered members.
http://www.facebook.com/terms.php

By accessing or using our web site at www.facebook.com or the mobile version thereof (together the "Site") or by posting a Share Button on your site, you (the "User") signify that you have read, understand and agree to be bound by these Terms of Use ("Terms of Use" or "Agreement"), whether or not you are a registered member of Facebook. We reserve the right, at our sole discretion, to change, modify, add, or delete portions of these Terms of Use at any time without further notice. If we do this, we will post the changes to these Terms of Use on this page and will indicate at the top of this page the date these terms were last revised. Your continued use of the Service or the Site after any such changes constitutes your acceptance of the new Terms of Use. If you do not agree to abide by these or any future Terms of Use, do not use or access (or continue to use or access) the Service or the Site. It is your responsibility to regularly check the Site to determine if there have been changes to these Terms of Use and to review such changes.

So you can sue them all you like, you will lose because their TOS covers them. Their back-peddeling is due to media (don't /.'ers hate the media?) pressure, not legal pressure.

This is the Internet's version of New Coke

[R2.0]

Or boiling the frog. They tried ti implement a controversial change all at once, and it caused a kerfuffle. Now they will ease it in slowly.

I have the feeling that Zuckerberg's girlfriend wasn't real happy when he tried to introduce her to anal sex.

Re:This is the Internet's version of New Coke

[Farmer Tim]

I have the feeling that Zuckerberg's girlfriend wasn't real happy when he tried to introduce her to anal sex.

"Honey, are the lawyers really necessary?"

"I want to be sure we're doing it right, so I called in the experts".

National attention

[StarvingSE]

Facebook had to do some damage control once the national media decided to make a story about it. There was a CNN story yesterday morning warning Facebook users about what the new terms of service meant and what it means to any content they put up on their profiles. I tried searching on youtube but couldn't find a video, unfortunately.

Re:National attention

[JayPee]

You probably couldn't find the video because it violated the terms of use.

Heyooooooooo

Re:National attention

[Vectronic]

Interview (Chris whoever)/report from today...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoH8ujZ-0hw

Didn't find yesterdays though.

How good was the original ToS?

[msgmonkey]

Call me paranoid and I have n't read the original Facebook ToS but in terms of privacy what does it guarentee exactly? If you want a conspiracy theory, people are now "happy" going back to the origonal ToS so maybe that was the cunning plan after all.

Re:How good was the original ToS?

[Overzeetop]

It was simple - they took the right to reproduce anything you posted - writing, photos, etc. It was non-exclusive. The key was that if you deleted something or left Facebook, those rights were terminated.

The change was that you could not terminate those rights by leaving; they were indefinite. The lawyer-speak used was not clear that the allowed use of your content on facebook was exclusively limited to facebook. Now, that's not a huge deal if you can terminate those rights should they attempt to abuse them. That's a big stick held by the content creator, even in light of the all-encompassing rights they took in order to operate their business (and, technically they needed nearly all those rights to generate the facebook pages without running afoul of copyright law).

By removing the revocation provision, they basically granted themselves perpetual rights to everything. That's a major change. The original TOS had some real safeguards in it, and I read them quite thoroughly when I signed up. This was, dare I say it, the lynchpin of those safeguards - a last, final way to undo what you had done.

Facebook has real copyright issues with the content they manage, and they don't want to set themselves up for a legal collapse. This change would have made the legal side very, very clean for them. And very unbalanced against members.

humanity makes no sense.

[owlnation]

While people were right to protest this -- and it's not the first time that Facebook has had to backtrack (probably not the last either), I can't help thinking that this is great effort, wholly misplaced.

The banks, for exampl,e have stolen billions of dollars from all of us. Where's the protest, people? Where's the effort to find out what happened? Where's the organization to make radical change there?

What a terrible waste!

Facebook protesters, learn from this -- if you can achieve this, you can actually make real change in the world -- change that actually matters, not just some trivial thing on a here-today-gone-tomorrow, insubstantial, unimportant, fad website.

Re:humanity makes no sense.

[EmperorKagato]

Why don't you lead?

Re:humanity makes no sense.

[GMFTatsujin]

Think for a moment about the institution you're talking about: something deep-rooted for centuries, penetrating every aspect of western life.

Now think about Facebook. Not even a decade old, and easily replaced.

Which do you think is easier to change with less uproar? Don't magnify the response on Facebook out of proportions: you don't see congressional hearings, massive politicizing, years of debate, marches in front of mansions, and constant media coverage on this admittedly very minor issue.

In other words, the uproar over the banking industry IS THERE. The uproar over the housing crisis IS THERE. The uproar over the fundamentals of the American economy IS THERE. You're not addressing the sheeple you imagine.

You're grandstanding, and it shows, and it doesn't become you.

Re:humanity makes no sense.

[drinkypoo]

The banks, for exampl,e have stolen billions of dollars from all of us. Where's the protest, people? Where's the effort to find out what happened? Where's the organization to make radical change there?

Take a look at the WTO protests to see how well that works. Consider that Amy Goodman, host of Democracy Now! and a well-known reporter was actually incarcerated for attempting to report on the Republican National Convention. The simple truth is that a protest in the streets will not work until the system has crashed because when you start getting masses of asses in the street, the government just brings out the national guard (a state-based military system which I believe is maintained specifically to get around the issue of not being "allowed" to use federal troops against citizens - otherwise it's more efficient to simply operate Nat'l Guard bases as any other Army base) and the fire hoses and the tear gas and the bean bag guns.

If we want to change things, we are going to have to protest through civil disobedience. Marching in the streets requires that a certain percentage of the population gets involved. Until the average citizen starts having to use ration cards for twinkies and doritos and loses their cable television signal, they're going to stay glued to the La-Z-Boy.

Re:humanity makes no sense.

[ubercam]

I'm not a Facebook user anymore, and frankly I couldn't care less about that awful waste of time.

I deleted my account almost a year ago. Not sure what its like now, but at that time you had to go through all your messages, wall posts that you posted and that others posted on your wall, pictures, etc, etc and delete everything MANUALLY. It took me a couple hours but it was worth it. Only after that would they "deactivate" my account. They NEVER used the word delete in regards to the account itself. You had to actually email them and request it to be deactivated. There was no easy "Delete my Account Permanently" button on their support page or anything. There was something like "Close my Account" that would only remove your account from being seen by others, but you could still log in and reactivate it, and all your old details, friends, wall posts, pictures, etc would still be there just like before. I wanted total annihilation and that involved them removing login permission from my account, effectively deleting it, but I bet it still exists in its entirety somewhere on some random backup tape.

Either way, the most people on Facebook ever do about anything is create a group about whatever it is they are "protesting" about and then forget about it. Nothing realistically will ever get done about this TOS crap. A few people might get all zealous about it, but then, OOOOH! Hold on! It's American Idol time! Right after it's over, they'll be right back online posting the latest gossip on their friends' walls like nothing happened. I mean, giving up your easy source of gossip and event reminders would be a terrible blow to your social life. Can't have that, can we?

The only way to TRULY protest would be to cancel your account like I did, never use it again, and encourage everyone you know to do the same. If, say, 10-20% of Facebook users did that (millions of people), we'd be having a much different conversation, but let's face it, a handful of people cancelling their accounts over the TOS change is not going to get Zuckerberg's attention at all. He couldn't care less. All this is, is just a bit of CYA because the media caught wind of it and blew it up, nothing more.

Re:humanity makes no sense.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the difference. It's easy to shut down a Facebook account. It's a lot easier than withdrawing your money from an untrustworthy bank to deposit it elsewhere.

Re:humanity makes no sense.

[Anonymous Coward]

Poster is grandstanding, and it shows. We can't really say that is doesn't become the poster. For all we know, grandstanding becomes the poster just fine.

Re:humanity makes no sense.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know, where is that organization? How come YOU haven't made it yet?

Also, everything that you care about doesn't matter either, hope you enjoy that.

Re:humanity makes no sense.

[WindowlessView]

You're not addressing the sheeple you imagine.

I suspect he is. That's not a slam, just a recognition of the human condition.

The problem with sheep isn't only that they are easily herded but that they have short memories too. You can occasionally freak out the herd and make them break ranks but as soon as order is restored they forget about it. That's effectively how humans handle crises though the time frame is larger than with sheep.

The difference between something like Facebook and the banking system differ less in dynamics than scale. Consider that banking in this country has a rather dismal record of minor collapses every decade or so and major ones every fifty or sixty years. And every time people freak out until some kind of equilibrium re-emerges. And then the issue recedes in memory until the next inevitable crisis. Facebook is the same situation writ small.

The real problem is the the herd just wants stability but there is a great financial incentive (be it with Facebook or the financial system) for a small group of actors to push the boundaries again after the herd has settled down. Facebook will try some other tactic to get what it wants and so will the bankers. And we will all be back here again some point down the road.

Re:humanity makes no sense.

[einer]

If I could hurt the banks by doing something as simple as closing a facebook account I would. Closing a bank account just means I have to open another one somewhere else. Also, me closing my account hurts banks a LOT less than me deleting my profile hurts facebook, especially since I'm subsidizing banks when I pay taxes whether I have an account or not.

Re:humanity makes no sense.

[Anonymous Coward]

Here: www.campaignforliberty.com

There's a bigger protest against the banks taking over than you think.

Re:humanity makes no sense.

[rgviza]

The problem with sheep isn't only that they are easily herded but that they have short memories too. You can occasionally freak out the herd and make them break ranks but as soon as order is restored they forget about it. That's effectively how humans handle crises though the time frame is larger than with sheep.
>-----------
If people weren't sheep, everyone in congress and senate would be freshmen because most of them are the same people that created this mess. The fact that we have 10 term congressmen is a real indicator of how short the majority's memory is.

`We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.`

Albert Einstein

The new new deal is the exact same type of thinking that was used when the seeds of our current problem and crushing national debt were created.

Socialism is doomed to repeat it's failures, period. This country is on life support and the prognosis is grim.

-Viz

Why don't...

[HexOxide]

Why don't they just modify the old TOS to say something along the lines of:
"When you delete your account, only your profile content will be deleted."
To cover the issues such as:
If you send a message to a user, and then you delete your account, they don't need to delete the message from you in that person's inbox
Or, if you submitted a picture via the graffiti app etc, they don't need to delete your entry on the other person's profile, etc.

Re:Why don't...

[Nukenbar]

Because with all things legal, it is not that simple.

They may have retained copies of that information in backup copies, or they could be under court order not to destroy information. There is no reason that Facebook should open themselves up to a lawsuit for these reasons alone.

Creative works

[_LORAX_]

I didn't have a problem with them retaining phone book information, wall posts, ... my beef was with creative works uploaded. Their land grab on rights in perpetuity was insanity. They could use any image I had uploaded for any purpose including commercial and advertising without any compensation whatsoever. They could sell rights to their image database to publishers, the AP, and others without regard for privacy or payment to me.

Re:Creative works

[NoisySplatter]

I don't understand the problem even with perpetual rights to the creative works you post. A few questions come to mind:

1. Why post them in the first place?

2. If they're photos, why does the horrible quality image that they offer even matter?

3. What else is there if it isn't photos?

Re:Creative works

[Anonymous Coward]

2. If they're photos, why does the horrible quality image that they offer even matter?

What do you mean by "offer"? People tend to upload hi-res images even though Facebook serves back low-res. The hi-res versions are probably kept on their servers.

A better question is why are people outraged by the TOS diff but if you read their specific complaints they are about things that were in the original TOS.

They made it worse

[Zerth]

Facebook showed fear to users. Never do that.

Now the users will think they can control things.

If they're quick, break out the LARTs, and delete a few thousand accounts(You asked us not to retain your data, you didn't mean right now?), they might get things back under control.

Oh Man!

[Cytlid]

I *just* changed all my pictures to files with the same name, but instead of my pictures, they were a white square with the words "Facebook sucks donkey balls."

Re:Oh Man!

[Culture20]

I *just* changed all my pictures to files with the same name, but instead of my pictures, they were a white square with the words "Facebook sucks donkey balls."

No you didn't. Every data file uploaded is assigned a unique large-number filename. Nothing is overwritten.

Re:Oh Man!

[Cytlid]

(It's a joke my friend. Laugh, I jest.)

Big deal about nothing?

[CXI]

So, Facebook changes its TOS to be clear that it might still have backups of your data around for a while, and people get MAD?!

"No Facebook, I want you to set it up so if you crash, that's it, all my data is gone for good! That'll teach me!"

Yeah, it didn't say that specifically, but neither, according to TFA, did they explicitly claim ownership.

Re:Big deal about nothing?

[drinkypoo]

So, Facebook changes its TOS to be clear that it might still have backups of your data around for a while, and people get MAD?!

You're wrong, and stupid too. The TOS said that not only could they keep backups of your data around, but that they could use them for any purpose. They also granted themselves the right to use your image, likeness, and other materials for any purpose. Ostensibly this is for the purpose of advertising facebook. But what you are missing is that facebook is a corporation and corporations never die. When facebook dies it gets bought by someone else who gets all that personal info, and the right to use it for any purpose. 30 years down the road when no one gives one tenth of one shit about facebook, all that personal info could still be used for any purpose including advertising gay porn. (Which mind you, is okay stuff if you want it, but probably not something that most FB users want their picture on. Or in! They have the legal right to filmgimp your face onto a pornstar!

This is not much ado about nothing. If this was only about backups they would only need the right to retain your information indefinitely, and maybe make copies of it. They don't need the right to use that media for any purpose, period the end. They CERTAINLY don't need the right to use your likeness for ANY purpose.

Re:Big deal about nothing?

[u8i9o0]

Sometimes we are blessed with the opportunity to provide real world examples.

In the case of FaceBook, the user grants certain content usage rights to FaceBook (presumably to advertise FaceBook itself).
In the linked example above, the user granted Creative Commons licensing to everyone.
Technically different, but it seems similar enough to properly illustrate your point.

By the way, this seems to be a follow up on that example.
The lesson: you give your privacy away, others will take it.

Re:Big deal about nothing?

[CXI]

Take a deep breath, calm down a minute, and stop attributing malice due to not understanding fully.

http://www.thestandard.com/news/2009/02/16/facebook-we-have-never-claimed-ownership-members-content

Re:Big deal about nothing?

[Jason Levine]

The first thing I thought of when I heard that Facebook was giving themselves the right to "sublicense" the content was the Virgin Mobile ad awhile back. An ad agency took a photo from Flickr without the user's permission and without a consent from the girl in the photo. They then used it in a series of ads that the girl and her family found offensive. Virgin Mobile was sued as a result.

Now, supposed this happened with Facebook under the new TOS. I take a photo of someone and post it on my Facebook page. Company X decides that's the perfect photo for their upcoming ads. They license the photo from Facebook and use it in their ads. I and the person in my photo find out about it and we are offended (me that my photo is being used without permission/compensation and the photo subject because they appear in the ads).

What our options be? I, being a Facebook user who has agreed to the TOS, have mandatory arbitration as my only option (another TOS clause). The arbitrator does what arbitrators do over 90% of the time and rules for the company (Facebook) who hired them. The person in the photo can go to the courts, but it would be a lengthy, costly battle whose outcome would be uncertain.

The Virgin Mobile case was clear. The company was wrong to lift the Flickr ad. My Facebook hypothetical situation wouldn't have been so clear.

Re:Big deal about nothing?

[Magic5Ball]

I especially enjoy that users are only getting mad when explicitly told by the media to do so in 2009, especially when the substantial point being protested (Facebook can store/reuse your user-generated data) has been in their TOS from the beginning.

Facebook could derive the same rights to reuse user-contributed data from every previous TOS they had, and equally well from the re-revised TOS that users are celebrating now, as easily evidenced by significant user-generated FB content being made searchable on Gooble, being used as part of their internal social advertising, and through any number of internal and external apps with public-facing content and data repositories.

This present round of anger confirms that users neither read, nor substantially care about TOS agreements in general. The outrage at around the new year over the breast-feeding photo censorship, which relied on asserting user rights allegedly in the TOS, should have clued in several thousands of users to the now objectionable changes in the TOS as they read it to understand the allowable photo content clauses they were specifically raging against, but that obviously didn't happen.

I wonder what part of the TOS the sensationalists will trawl next month to keep the ad revenue coming.

Re:Big deal about nothing?

[drinkypoo]

Take a deep breath, calm down a minute, and stop attributing malice due to not understanding fully.

Others have said it; I'll say it again, because it's still true: I didn't write the ToS. Facebook published a ToS which most certainly does claim the legal right to the effective ownership of members' content and to a certain extent their identity, in the form of the right to use their likeness.

They didn't claim reassignment of copyright, but they did claim an irrevocable license to do as they like with your account. By the terms of their (now backed-out-of) ToS they could have put anything they wanted into your facebook profile and masqueraded as you and had the (ostensible) legal right to do so. This is not a problem when it's fake(politician)blog but when it's a profile that you have actually created, a profile that does represent you, then the situation is entirely different. It's not just a case of the shoe being on the other foot, it's a horse of a different color :)

If Facebook has no intention of using these rights, then they should not and do not need to claim them. I don't know what makes this so complicated. And I further don't understand why you would accept the word of "a Facebook spokesman" (as per your link) as to what their intentions are. I think the ToS made their intentions pretty. damned. clear.

Re:Big deal about nothing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Somebody mod parent down. He just doesn't get it!! There ought to be an age lower limit enforced on /.

Cowards

[Anonymous Coward]

Mark Zuckerberg ought to grow a backbone and stick to his word. He can't let the opinions of a bunch of whiny high school kids affect the way he does business! All hail the new Facebook ToS!

No one seems to get this...

[Zakabog]

I posted this last time, it seems that no one seems to understand that their ToS change is quite standard.

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.

Why the knee jerk reaction to facebook having the same policies as slashdot? If you delete your slashdot account, what do you think happens to all of your archived comments?

Re:No one seems to get this...

[xaxa]

Because Slashdot and Facebook have different purposes. For instance, I use my real name on Facebook and have photographs and lists of friends.

It would take some effort to find my real name from my Slashdot user ID (not impossible though), and there's only 2 people who's /. ID I know.

Re:No one seems to get this...

[Hatta]

I'm not likely to post a work of art on slashdot and intend to sell it later.

Re:No one seems to get this...

[Zakabog]

Because Slashdot and Facebook have different purposes. For instance, I use my real name on Facebook and have photographs and lists of friends.

It would take some effort to find my real name from my Slashdot user ID (not impossible though), and there's only 2 people who's /. ID I know.

...so? There are people who have links to their personal websites in their sig. There are people who use their real name on Slashdot. Also, what about Sourceforge? What if you write some script when you're younger that goes out and actively searches for porn (they exist, and they're not hard to write)? You could have all sorts of contact info on Sourceforge that links you to this script and Sourceforge has the right to keep it up indefinitely.

Maybe one day you decide to become a politician, you might not want that script still floating around with your name on it, in which case you're in pretty much the same boat as if you had stuff you didn't want seen floating around on Facebook. There really isn't any difference, Facebook needs that policy in their ToS to cover their ass if you delete your account but they still want any comments you wrote up. Or if they just have a backup, they need the right to have that information available on their backup server, otherwise you could sue them for having your copyrighted content on one of their computers.

Re:No one seems to get this...

[NoisySplatter]

Mostly because the people up in arms about it have no idea what a backup is.

Someone told them the new TOS was bad and they jumped on the bandwagon. I doubt many of them ever read the old one or the new one.

Re:No one seems to get this...

[drinkypoo]

Why the knee jerk reaction to facebook having the same policies as slashdot? If you delete your slashdot account, what do you think happens to all of your archived comments?

Isn't that a far cry, though, from [...] including the option to "use your name, likeness and image for any purpose"?

Slashdot has the first part of the objectionable content of the facebook license, but not the second part. They don't claim the legal right to impersonate you. And as others have pointed out, Slashdot doesn't host images or go out of its way to collect personal information about you. The info collected on slashdot is 100% falsifiable (throwaway email) and everything else is something you had to go seek out - you can create a bio, but you have to go looking for it, for example.

The situation is totally different just based on what kind of material is being submitted, and to not be able to see that is a cry for help (with logic.)

Re:No one seems to get this...

[Zakabog]

Isn't that a far cry, though, from [...] including the option to "use your name, likeness and image for any purpose"?

The only difference is that facebook explicitly says they can use your name, likeness and image for any purpose. The sourceforge ToS covers the exact same thing with no clause for the license to ever be revoked.

The info collected on slashdot is 100% falsifiable (throwaway email) and everything else is something you had to go seek out - you can create a bio, but you have to go looking for it, for example.

You mean your facebook account actually has real information about you? I made everything on mine up, the people who know me know it's my facebook and I only created it so they'd stop complaining that I don't have a facebook account. I didn't feel the need to have some page online containing all of my personal information. There's a lot more identifying information about me on slashdot than there is on facebook.

Anyway, facebook is just doing that to legally cover their asses, if slashdot allowed you to upload images then it would be exactly the same situation (they wouldn't even need to change anything as their current clause covers anything you submit to the site, and it applies to all sourceforge owned websites.) Some ad guy at facebook might want to make a little commercial with a couple screenshots of user pages showing what facebook looks like, that is the sort of stuff this clause is most likely going to be used for. That way if you delete your account 5 years from now and that commercial is still playing, you can't sue them for having your page appear in the background and they don't have to worry about keeping track of what they might have used from their site for advertising.

If you really feel that facebook is looking to impersonate than you shouldn't be using their service.

Re:No one seems to get this...

[Mordaximus]

Why the knee jerk reaction to facebook having the same policies as slashdot? If you delete your slashdot account, what do you think happens to all of your archived comments?

The majority of people who contribute on Slashdot are not only tech savvy, but have some understanding of licensing, copyright and the like. We enter in to such agreements knowingly (as far as the IANAL crowd can,) or, if we didn't read an agreement, we know *something* is there.

Most facebook users don't have an earthly clue how much privacy they're trowing away using the service and and completely unaware of what rights they have (or had) and how exactly the new TOS affects them.

The biggest problem for me, isn't as much the new TOS, but the fact that it was changed without notification, and by simply using my account, I've accepted the new TOS. That's plain dirty.

Re:No one seems to get this...

[Zakabog]

I'm not likely to post a work of art on slashdot and intend to sell it later.

You might want to do that on Freshmeat, which is also covered under the same ToS.

Re:No one seems to get this...

[drinkypoo]

You mean your facebook account actually has real information about you?

I don't remember if I even have one. I probably do. If it has information about me, it's probably real but fairly harmless.

I actually like it that people can find me. No one in my past who has troubled me is much of a concern to me today, but occasionally someone I care about finds me because it's easy. (For instance, my prolific posting history here and my contributions to Everything2 both have my real name on them - On E2, through my profile.)

If you really feel that facebook is looking to impersonate than you shouldn't be using their service.

I didn't feel that facebook would impersonate me until they granted themselves the right to do so in their ToS.

Re:No one seems to get this...

[Anonymous Coward]

When requested, each SourceForge Site user must: (1) personally provide true, accurate, current and complete information on the SourceForge Site's registration form (collectively, the "Registration Data") and (2) maintain and promptly update the Registration Data as necessary to keep it true, accurate, current and complete.

Read the Slashdot TOS! Think about the MySpace case. What would a judge or jury say about a "throwaway" email address? It doesn't sound true, accurate, current, or complete. This is why I always post AC - no registration. More /. TOS fun:

SourceForge reserves the right to change these general practices at any time, in its sole discretion, with notice to users and the public as described in Section 1 above.

Taco and his fucking friends live in a glass house.

Re:No one seems to get this...

[IANAAC]

Depending on what type of art, if it's an image for instance, watermark it. You would be CRAZY to put an unwatermarked image anywhere online and wanted to sell it.

Re:No one seems to get this...

[Anonymous Coward]

What!? You mean you're not planning "Hatta's Compendium of Insightful Posts" or "Hatta's Big Book of +5 Funny"!?

Re:No one seems to get this...

[geekoid]

Becasue it's a bad policy and backlash needs to start somewhere. There fact that it's 'standard' does not make it good, legal or right.

Re:No one seems to get this...

[Anonymous Coward]

> If you really feel that facebook is looking to impersonate than you shouldn't be using their service.

I'm assuming that both of you are aware that impersonation is a crime in most jurisdictions, regardless of what a private TOS may or may not try to contract. Also, FB's TOS does not want to authorise impersonation, but commercial use of content and possibly non-incidental likenesses.

Re:No one seems to get this...

[DeskLazer]

wait a minute. what's this "friends" thing about? just because I modded you insightful or interesting once or twice doesn't mean you can come over for my backyard BBQ's.

friends don't let friends make friends on slashdot.

Re:No one seems to get this...

[Magic5Ball]

The majority of people who contribute on Slashdot are not only tech savvy, but have some understanding of licensing, copyright and the like.

Yes, "some understanding" in the same sense that knowledge of the Jargon File provides some understanding of software engineering, or Call of Duty provides some understanding of assault tactics. See:

http://www.google.ca/search?q=license+inurl:ask.slashdot.org&hl=en&safe=off&filter=0

Re:No one seems to get this...

[xaxa]

You can define Slashdot "Friends" and "Foes". Click the grey circle after someone's username.

You can then set give their posts +1 or whatever, and the grey circle turns green. I've set Foes to -5, so I don't have to see people who make me cross with the world :)

Re:No one seems to get this...

[Zakabog]

Becasue it's a bad policy and backlash needs to start somewhere. There fact that it's 'standard' does not make it good, legal or right.

It's standard because without that clause anyone can sue a website they post content on for having a backup server.

Plus if that website ever wants to advertise they can include a screenshot of their site which might include your username and a thumbnail icon representing yourself (most social networking websites show random users on their main page), they're giving themselves an easy way to do that without tracking exactly who was shown on the page, or if they deleted their account.

Re:No one seems to get this...

[davidsyes]

So, it sounds more and more to me that facebook, as with other sites, want to be land-grabbing, manifest-destinest assholes. They seem to be granting themselves the right to remove copyright or similar watermarks from images they or their partners/licensees/subsids may want to sell.

So, let me get this. A professional (or any for that matter) photographer can shoot pics of a wedding, get the proofs made, stamp them with his/her copyright mark, then preview to the buyer. They buyer KNOWS or should know that this work, unless sold off by the photographer under a defining contract (such as work for hire, and not the art/skill of the supplying photographer) is NOT to be illegally reproduced for any reason, whether or not monetary gain is realized.

Facebook needs to go hands off, and needs to archive works and writings only for site continuity reasons, and they need to explicitly state they are not seeking nor will they allow employees to abuse, usurp, or angle in on subscribers work.
Now, facebook seems to want to use its trashy-ass lawyers to redefine or usurp copyright law, coerce subscribers/site users into arbitration, and to forefeit rights normally not surrendered. Fucking assholes.

So, they are saying that they can make derivatives of my blueprints, market them ahead of me, and then legally produce a POS (piece of shit) TOS that says their derivative works of my work can trump my original right to sell and modify my works. Their modifications might by fluke come VERY close to mine, and then who in the world would believe that my earlier, unpublished, unregistered works truly preceded their faster distribution of mine?

Don't think it can happen? Back around 2001 or 2002, an entrepreneur (of color) went to a bank (in Maryland or DC area) to obtain a loan. The bank's loan officer declined. A few months later, that customer/potential client found out his business plan was in operation. He investigated, and found out that the person running HIS BUSINESS PLAN obtained it from the bank loan officer. The two turned out to be friends. The loan officer declined a person of color and basically fucking STOLE the business plan and gave it to his friend.

Facebook, with numerous employees and lawyers (as with deviant art and other sites, such as slashdot) can take all our work and offload it to someone who can package it faster and maybe better, but the rub is not that they may incite or inspire derivative work. The rub is that their assigneed or recipient might obtain protection (legally, by lawyers and by quirks in copyright law) to prevent the originator from also benefitting.

Another example: IF you submit a business plan to a bank, they may make copies of it for purposes of surviving an audit the US Small Business Administration may perform if the applicant is trying to process an SBA business loan. The bank (or the loan officer involved) may also try to claim it needs to make for quality control or reasons to prove s/he is work. So, again your ideas might fall prey to greedy, well-funded people.

Re:No one seems to get this...

[Anonymous Coward]

So because someone somewhere doesn't care about privacy means that I shouldn't either? Bad argument.

Re:No one seems to get this...

[Anonymous Coward]

And just why would you be likely to post a work of art on Facebook and intend to sell it later?

Re:No one seems to get this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Like /. is like /. dude!

Backups...

[warrax_666]

One can encrypt backups with keys that are "expire" (read: are thrown away) according to some schedule, so that they can have e.g. backups for the last year, but cannot read backups that are older than that. Should be pretty simple to set up, really.

Re:Backups...

[rmaureira]

Excuse my ignorance and being offtopic, but... how good is a backup that you can't read? I mean, if I can't read the backup why not simply dump it? and that's the same as not having the backup encrypted but with an expiration schedule.

Re:Backups...

[Anonymous Coward]

One can encrypt backups with keys that are "expire" (read: are thrown away) according to some schedule, so that they can have e.g. backups for the last year, but cannot read backups that are older than that. Should be pretty simple to set up, really.

Assuming your process involves encrypting snapshots of your backup data, there's a decidedly lower tech implementation:

1. Take the frequency of backup that you'd like; in this example, once a week.
2. Separate your backup tapes into this many groups: "days in a year" / "days between backups" (in this case, roughly 52).
3. Each time you back up your data, go to the next batch of tapes.
4. After the first year, you will be overwriting the previous year's data. There's no need to expire encryption keys; just nuke the data according to this system. It also saves you the money of having to sift through backup tapes with "expired" encrypted data.

Re:Backups...

[warrax_666]

Of course, you're right -- if you can, you might as well just delete the old backups. I was thinking in terms of storage where it may not be technically feasible to actually ensure that the backups are physically deleted. In that case you know that the *encrypted* data will be around forever, but presumably you wouldn't store the keys along with the backups and could throw the keys away to ensure that data which should really have been "deleted" cannot ever be accessed beyond its expiry date. (Modulo the crypto algorithm being broken or, more likely, some adversary intercepting keys and keeping them around beyond the expiry date.)

Can they guarantee this?

[bogaboga]

Some part of me thinks guaranteeing that once my account is deleted, Facebook and all its users lose access to them is unrealistic. After all, no ISP can say the same when it comes to email I delete. But I still would like to know what happens to my data once my account is closed. Can they guarantee that it will be gone for good?

But you know what? Facebook and the like will hardly see any of my business from now on.

Signups to Bebo and myspace are up over 200%

[Anonymous Coward]

Check out their blogs. The people have voted with their feet.

AG

Re:Signups to Bebo and myspace are up over 200%

[spacefiddle]

The people have voted with their feet.

I don't know how you blog, but i think yerdoinitwrong.

Re:Signups to Bebo and myspace are up over 200%

[rarel]

He meant to say, they put their money where their mouse is.

What I find ironic....

[Anonymous Coward]

Is the fact that they used FACEBOOK to protest against FACEBOOK. Am I the only one that finds this ironic?

Start your own social network

[cryfreedomlove]

Dear Facebook TOS objectors,

Why don't you stop complaining and simply start your own social network with more user friendly TOS. After all, if Facebook's TOS are as bad as you say, then it should be a walk in the park to get your own social network going where the basis of your differentiation is friendly TOS. You'll be as rich and famous as Zuckerberg. What's stopping you?

Building is harder than whining.

Re:Start your own social network

[WagonWheelsRX8]

Yes, building is harder than whining...especially if whining works. I am surprised by the nearly complete change of opinion I see here...the previous article (posted just yesterday) had a great majority of comments criticizing (and rightfully so) the new ToS and especially it's implementation (and even compared how excessively overreaching and draconian they are compared to other, similar competing services). Yet today all I see are people criticizing users for not being happy with a 'standard' ToS. Just because the ToS looks like the 'standard' ToS doesn't necessarily mean business as usual IS best practice...

Re:Start your own social network

[Anonymous Coward]

Building is harder than whining.

Which is exactly why whining is a good thing. If it takes less effort to force the company to change that it does to start a new company, it's only logical to whine first.

Re:Start your own social network

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok I will thanks!

Re:Start your own social network

[Anonymous Coward]

So when people don't protest bad changes in the government, they're lazy bastards; but if they protest bad changes elsewhere, they're whiners that should just break off and start their own group rather than trying to effect change in the group they're involved in? Gotcha.

Re:Start your own social network

[John Hasler]

Have you considered the possibility that you are seeing the opinions of two different groups pf people?

Re:Start your own social network

[WagonWheelsRX8]

Yes I did, but when I posted the extreme level of polarization surprised me.

Damn Those Users, Anyway...!

[RobotRunAmok]

Now the users will think they can control things.

"Users?" Are those, like, customers...?

Re:Damn Those Users, Anyway...!

[Zerth]

Facebooks customers are the advertisers, just like TV or Google. Users are the product.

Re:Damn Those Users, Anyway...!

[Anonymous Coward]

It was a sad day to me when I realized this same truth.

captcha: Umbrage

Re:Damn Those Users, Anyway...!

[Anonymous Coward]

Now the users will think they can control things.

"Users?" Are those, like, customers...?

No. Users are sold to customers.

Facebook has now lost all control

[DragonTHC]

If they are so quick to bow to user pressure, they have no power to make any changes. They have lost control of their enterprise.

Re:Facebook has now lost all control

[Anonymous Coward]

They've lost nothing since the TOS change and reversion did not alter FB's ability to handle and use your user-generated content in any way they seek. FB have leveraged a concession that costs them next to nothing to gain free world-wide media attention for a week and kudos from thousands of "socially-aware" users who value this reversion highly and now support Facebook's actions as a socially responsive company.

Slow down, dammit.

[spacefiddle]

I think it's quite irresponsible of you to post a "never mind" story while we're still commenting on t'other one about the original ToS change. My biting, witty comments and slicing sarcasm are completely wasted on an evaporated situation, and i'm sure there's still hordes of newly-found mod points hunting through the underbrush of the 5-deep nested comments, eyes agleam with fanatical zeal and ready with the Troll stick.

For shame, sir. For shame.

Yeah, i know it's not all really resolved.

Re:Slow down, dammit.

[shentino]

It's not /.'s fault if the target of their previous story did an about face and changed their position before everyone got their gripes out.

Facebook TNG

[andrewd18]

Personally, I'm upset that they reverted the Facebook ToS change. The modification retconned the timeline with Facebook TNG.

You just didn't understand, I think

[Mathinker]

If you read the post you replied to carefully, IMO it says that the lawyer wanted all those details before the project even had an initial design. Which is a silly request, and my impression is that the lawyer was very stubborn about this, even after nettdata explained why it was silly.

In other words, the lawyer wasn't being a team player. He was "worked around", and paid for it, dearly.

Re:You just didn't understand, I think

[furby076]

Actually, I work as a Business analyst/project manager for software/hardware development and there are times where the lawyers need to know information before a product/plan is chosen. There are high level meetings where the group will "ball-park" what is needed. They will guess-ti-mate the size of the project before any actual research. This will involve things like "we know of about 5-6 programs we plan to use, the kind of hardware we may need, and rougly ## to ## man hours". And even if none of that happened - the lawyer asked for information; a team player would have say "hey, let me help direct you to the correct information - which will save you time and effort and allow you to make an informed decision". That would have been a team-player move.

Re:You just didn't understand, I think

[Mathinker]

> "hey, let me help direct you to the correct information - which will save
> you time and effort and allow you to make an informed decision".

Look, neither you nor I were there. Yes, it could have been nettdata who reacted to the lawyer's ignorance in a way that caused the problem described, but it could just as well have been that nettdata said exactly what you just said, and the lawyer replied with something like "Let me deal with the law stuff, I'm the expert in law here, there's no way that you could help me!."

I find it interesting that you, upon hearing nettdata's side of the story, instead of siding with him, which would be the natural thing to do (since like most people, he believes he was on the right side of the conflict), you sided with the lawyer. Seems to be based in a (possibly unconscious, even) character judgment of nettdata based on the language of his post --- now that I analyze this intellectually, I can understand your position.

Facebook will keep your stuff forever

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't they use this as a selling point? No one seems to be addressing easily our mortality on the net. I put alot of effort into maintaining my own personal website with tons of content on it, but I don't trust my kids to maintain it after I'm gone, which means all that work will poof into /dev/null/ eventually.

I -like- the idea of all my chatter and advice sticking around after I'm gone. Especially on a social networking website someone may find something I've said or done useful long after I'm dead.

You folks with your privacy concerns, you will all go to dust, and be forgotten.

Re:Facebook will keep your stuff forever

[Anonymous Coward]

Full disclosure: I LOL'd.

All kidding aside, they will discriminate your kiddies based on what you did after you've kicked the bucket. On the other hand a slashbot probably doesn't have any offspring...

it's a social network

[goombah99]

Never underestimate the ignorance of many lawyer types.

I think the issue here is that this is situation lawyers seldom encounter. Namley it is a software that facilitiates mass communications. The exponent on the geometric progression of linkages here is a lot higher than for a telephone or even an e-mail mass mailer.

So when people are upset facebook gives them the tools to create an enlerging consensus of upset people with pitch forks.

This is really a new pardigm. The lawyers are not so much ignorant as unable to predict what would happen.

Be sure to tag this phenomena "aboutface"

Privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to be missing the point. PRIVACY settings. Sourceforge code and Slashdot comments are designed for PUBLIC CONSUMPTION.

Facebook is promising a utility that shares private data, has extensive privacy settings, and is encouraging the use of real private data (name, friends).

ToS or not, there is a reasonable expectation that they will safeguard privacy. This includes not exposing data that was restricted in distribution. Their ToS seems to shy away from this.

People are up in arms about THAT.

I agree, I think that putting real information on Facebook is dangerous, even. Friends being able to associate random pictures with me? I don't even like that. If they have a breach (or subpoena) they can expose my real-life network of friends? This is extremely valuable information, and I keep it as private as possible via their settings. I don't expect my likeness to show up in ads to people who aren't allowed to see my listing.

There is a grey area though. I don't care if they show my likeness to people who already have access to my account, even if it is showing them that I bought a book. As long as it isn't a misrepresentation. I think it's very hard for them to craft language about that.

Mod parent up

[LonghornXtreme]

+1 Informative

Told You So

[dcollins]

May I point out that the Slashdot "they're a private company, they can do whatever they want and you have no recourse but to suck it up" crowd has been proven wrong once again. Community organization and political action has once again carried the day.

Re:Told You So

[John Hasler]

They are a private company and can do whatever they want (within the limits of the law). This includes doing stupid things and suffering the consequences.

> Community organization and political action has once again carried the day.

People threatening to take their business elsewhere is not "political action".

Legal question for the IANALs

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a whole 1 image on Facebook. My relatives and friends, however, have uploaded a few photos which I myself have taken.

I'm obviously fine with that, but if Facebook attempts to use the images against my will, can I use the excuse that I never granted these people permission to redistribute? Or will Facebook be able to counter somehow with the fact that I've permitted these others to upload my works, therefore I've somehow granted Facebook access to them indirectly?

Facebooks pen stroke was too broad

[HikingStick]

The explanation they posted to users makes sense: that the type of content they wanted to consider perpetually theirs for use was information you (the Facebook user) posted to another Facebook user's wall, or to a group discussion, or something along those lines. That would be a reasonable expectation for any user of an online service.

My main gripe was that, if taken as written, the 2/4/09 TOS left users totally stowed--there was no clarification as to the types of information they intended to keep. While IANAL, I do know enough about contract law to know this: you are held to the letter of the contract, not the intent. The new TOS said (per my simple paraphrase): "if you post it, we can use it for any reason, forever, even if you choose to leave Facebook." I didn't want them making claim to my photos, or even selling them to some third party.

I ditched my FB account on the day the news about the new TOS was posted here (I had received NO notice of the change from Facebook). Even with this backpeddling, I'm not sure I'm going back. They have, after all, only promised to revert to the old TOS while they assess the user complaints and try to develop a new TOS document that will more clearly define their rights vs. user rights. I won't decide until after that new TOS is available for review.

Re:Facebooks pen stroke was too broad

[HikingStick]

In case anyone is wondering about the apparent contradiction in my post: I left facebook when Slashdot posted news about the new TOS. I read Facebook's statement about the reversal when a family member saw it this morning when she visited Facebook.

It's just a recognition of reality

[RollingThunder]

Facebook presumably does tape backups.

The TOS change just recognized that when you click "delete my account", your data is still on the backup tapes from the previous days. They're not going to load up every single damned tape and edit them just because a person has removed their account. It's technically impossible, and a nightmare from a data reliability standpoint.

They shouldn't have pulled back so quickly...

[Bones3D_mac]

I'm somewhat surprised that a company like this would be so quick to second guess such a policy change. Most americans would still continue to use it despite the privacy issues simply to avoid the hassle of either convincing their entire network of people also using the service to relocate elsewhere, or losing a majority of their most commonly used contacts over principles alone.

Too bad too... there's probably tons of money that could be made off such information had they stuck to their guns and simply waited out the brief backlash.

SevenEcks

[Anonymous Coward]

There is still a span of about 4 days where facebooks owns everything!

People "don't get" the WWW or the Internet

[WebCowboy]

...and THAT is why Facebook, or big "social networking" websites in general, have any relevance whatsoever.

The Internet, and especially the WWW, were supposed to enable ordinary people to publish their own information without influence and control of "big content providers". It was supposed to be the biggest revolution in publishing since Gutenberg's press--not only were books accessible to the masses, not the masses could publish THEIR OWN information!

What happened to this revolution? The technology is still there, but not only have we not progressed, we've SLID BACKWARDS! We've all abdicated our rights to and responsibilities for our own information to a small handful of very large corporate entities...and then we bitch and moan when those "big content providers" do exactly what we should have expected they'd do with your information--retain it, profit from it, and generally be careless with it.

That's NOT what the 'net was supposed to be about! We were supposed to "rent the pipes" and storage space like we do our phone lines and self-storage garages and then publish our data ourselves. I was thrilled when DSL came to the market here 12 years ago, followed quickly by broadband from the local cable companies. I was able to get internet connectivity 24/7! Now I only needed to "rent the pipe" and I could have even MORE control over how I published by info because I could RUN MY OWN SERVER!

It was looking to me like the dawn of a new era--anyone who wanted to could set up their own little server and run their own websites easier than ever before--the BBS world would be able to move forward from the domain of geeks with extra phone lines and modems to something more graphical and interconnected and "plug and play". People were taking about "internet appliances" and I assumed that as time went on that *two way* appliances would become ubiquitous.

It hasn't happened that way though. There seems to be this insistence that "internet appliances" be one-way client-only devices--merely enhanced TVs and radios where some big network can push information to us as THEY see fit. ISPs have further RESTRICTED the ability to host your own services instead of expanding that ability (primarily because the biggest ISPs are now owned by content publishers). And not only has the old school personal/small community-oriented BBS gone essentially extinct, so have REAL personal websites before they got a chance to really gain traction. We've DEVOLVED from publishing HTML documents on our local ISP's web servers to doing the same on global "web hosts" like Geocities to setting up blogs on global blogging sites to setting up groups on Facebook.

Facebook isn't an ISP, they are yet another traditional media publisher--we give our info away to them and they publish it as they see fit...just as how Old Media works. I suppose I always underestimate people's capacity for laziness or ignorance in this regard. It seems people just don't "get it", or maybe they just don't care. Whatever happened though, the 'net hasn't turned out the way I thought it would, and no amount of changes to the ToS of Facebook or similar sites will fix what is, in my view, the entirely wrong direction for the WWW.

Re:People "don't get" the WWW or the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing has been forfeited. Learn some html, get a server, and you can put up as much info as you want TOS free.

Re:People "don't get" the WWW or the Internet

[mrrudge]

Agreed, doing all this is entirely possible, there is no slip backwards, I can publish what I like on the Internet in exactly the same way as the *establishment* can.

I think it's important to remember that the view from the technically minded web elite (!) is not that of the majority of facebook users. Most of my friends on facebook don't have enough interest in maintaining a web presence to learn how to write html, css, use ftp, rent server space, register a domain, Etc. ( Not to mention php/perl, db's etc to make it dynamic or allow them to upload photos from their phones, Etc ) And if they did, then the quality of that site would probably be nowhere near the standard set by facebook, where their friends already are.

There are lots of things in life which I'm not an expert at either, and there are probably internet forums somewhere shouting that I should be, if I cared. I don't have the time for everything, how can anyone ?

If a general internet user is now interested in how his personal data is dealt with, and what happens to their privacy online then I think that means a great deal more in the grand scheme of things than a few geeks who know how to get around the issues anyway, and is a step forwards.

Issues dealt with by the masses, by people voting with their feet on the more popular websites, help set what is acceptable for the rest of the Internet.

Re:People "don't get" the WWW or the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

John Gilmore should perhaps rethink his quote a bit?

Re:People "don't get" the WWW or the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

"I suppose I always underestimate people's capacity for laziness or ignorance in this regard. It seems people just don't "get it", or maybe they just don't care."

Well put. As a lazy person that cares little, I would make the point that people are probably more concerned with communicating with their friends in a new way than learning html/apache/postgres/blah. People as passionate and geeky as yourself have a mission... build us those revolutionary two ways apps :)

To all you cynics

[geekoid]

This is a reminder on how public outcry can get things changed.

Something to remember when you are flapping your gums in a tirade about how corporations of the government doesn't listen to there customers or citizens.

Fail.

[sean.peters]

Sorry, but you're wrong. The new TOS allowed them not just to retain backups of your data, it allowed them to use it for any purpose whatsoever, including reselling it. That's a far cry from just keeping backups.

When will people learn?

[Morpeth]

Post something publicly and lo and behold the public might see it. Once it's out there, you're going to lose control of it; especially when it's not your site/server and you agree to the TOS (whether or not you read it), it's just the nature of the beast.

I'm baffled at the kind of things people will post about themselves, either in text, or worse, in forms of images -- to the public at large, and then freak when it's used in a way they weren't anticipating.

We have developed a kind of confessional, exhibitionist culture obsessed with 'sharing'. Fine, share all you want, but stop whining when the information isn't used just to boost your self-inflated ego and to have people tell you how cool you are. If you don't want everyone to know something about you, then don't freakin' post it where everyone can read it, hullo?

Say what you want about TOS's etc, but you're unbelievably naive if you think those won't change, sites won't be hacked, etc. The slashdot community should know this better than anyone. And Social networking sites (or blog hosts, etc) don't give a rat's ass about you, they are there to generate revenue via ads or other means -- not to serve humanity.

I Escaped Notice of Facebook

[zaivala]

I joined Facebook very early in their process, a couple of years ago... and found out what they were up to within a week, and removed all my information. I'd rather the government have to work harder than that to obtain my information... not that I'm paranoid, you understand, but sometimes they ARE out to get you.

In Ceasar Milans' voice

[Scrameustache]

Facebook showed fear to users. Never do that.

Lol! That made me laugh.
Facebook has to be the pack leader!

If only...

[gillbates]

Our government responded in like manner to bad policy...

Companies Never Learn From The Past: GeoCities

[mlauzon]

I said this would happen and that they'd end up changing back to the old TOS, as companies never seem to learn from the past...Geocities tried this same thing years ago -- wasn't it mentioned on Slashdot? -- and because of public outcry they backed off!

TOS TOS?

[Anonymous Coward]

What TOS covers each TOS? Was the new TOS covered by the new or old TOS when it was posted, and what TOS are each TOS covered by now?

Also good ideas:

[roystgnr]

Using the Preview button after every edit, and adding </i> after every <i>...

CNN? Controlled of all Content!

[recharged95]

Considering CNN tried to leverage and exploit facebook for the election and inauguration, I'm not surprise they b*tched and moaned (cause all that CNN generated content is now owned by FB).

.

Of course, this could be a deploy by FB to the old-media companies not to exploit them without consent. Ha.

CNN Terms of Service Are No Different

[greyfeld]

From the Terms link at the bottom of the CNN main page (check out the bold part for some interesting stuff):

By submitting material to any public area of CNN Interactive, Subscriber automatically grants, or warrants that the owner of such material has expressly granted CNN the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate and distribute such material (in whole or in part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media or technology now known or hereafter developed for the full term of any copyright that may exist in such material. Subscriber also permits any other Subscriber to access, view, store or reproduce the material for that Subscriber's personal use. Subscriber hereby grants CNN the right to edit, copy, publish and distribute any material made available on CNN Interactive by Subscriber.

and with regards to changing their terms:

CNN shall have the right at any time to change or modify the terms and conditions applicable to Subscriber's use of CNN Interactive, or any part thereof, or to impose new conditions, including, but not limited to, adding fees and charges for use. Such changes, modifications, additions or deletions shall be effective immediately upon notice thereof, which may be given by means including, but not limited to, posting on CNN Interactive, or by electronic or conventional mail, or by any other means by which Subscriber obtains notice thereof. Any use of CNN Interactive by Subscriber after such notice shall be deemed to constitute acceptance by Subscriber of such changes, modifications or additions.

Show me the money!

[Anonymous Coward]

What did you think that $15 billion valuation was for?

Investors want to see money.. sooner or later. They want to see REAL money, NOT claims of how valuable Facebook is!

Wake up!
Facebook wants to SELL YOU and all your friends in the process.. sooner or later! They want to shake your profile, mine your data and generate money out of it... Not just ad revenue, but LOTS AND LOTS of money!

Quick, fix the tag!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's tagged TOS but people obviously meant POS!

Also, fuck facebook and all it's lusers.

Privacy != Secrecy

[mahadiga]

Privacy != Secrecy
Privacy is desirable.
Secrecy is NOT desirable.

Interoperability is the problem

[Stu Charlton]

The reason something like Facebook works is that they can design a database schema to facilitate a complete experience that just kind of... works.... Across mini-feeds, status walls, applications, etc.

Doing that in a way that's completely decentralized requires standardization on interfaces and data that would be hard to do for a couple of reasons:
- Agreeing on the architecture; how many "really" RESTful interfaces are out there? Netflix has a great one, but Flickr doesn't.
- What's the syntax? JSON, XML, YAML, ... ?
- How about a data model? Will people want to go beyond syntax into being able to do queries like what SPARQL gives you?

But beyond the technological hurdles, there's the business angle. Social media isn't exactly rolling in revenue, it's rolling in VC funding at best. Why interoperate when can try to claim a monopoly position? Or aim to be the defacto standard?

So, in the end, I woudn't say we're moving backwards ... we're just progressing through the usual stages of how standards and openness has evolved online. We start with well-funded walled gardens (CompuServe, Prodigy, your local BBS, etc.) , people eventually get fed up and build out interoperable bridges that cross them (e.g. FIDOnet and NNTP in the old days of bulletin boards). Now we have to do the same for the web....