Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Facebook Faces the Canadian Privacy Commissioner

Posted by timothy on from the soory-aboot-that-yah dept.

dakohli writes "Canwest's Sarah Schmidt writes that Facebook has until Monday to find a way to fix its 'serious privacy gaps.' And if the Canadian Privacy Commissioner isn't happy with the Web Company's response, then she has two weeks to push it to the Canadian Federal Court in Ottawa. 'A spokeswoman for the commission said it's premature to say whether the feud will end up in court. This would be an international first for Facebook, which has grown to more than 200 million users since its launch in 2004.'"

10 of 140 comments (clear)

  1. Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    At least one country is going to try to close this massive loophole of never destroying a user's information when they want to remove their account. I mean I can understand that being able to just "deactivate" an account is useful when a user just wants to stop using facebook for a while but how hard is it to have a remove feature that deletes a users information?

    1. Re:Finally by Alphanos · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's more complicated when the data may be the result of collaborative effort. If two users have a detailed conversation, then one wants all data associated with them deleted, what happens when the other user complains?

      Now in that case it still seems fairly clear that the privacy concern should come first, but as we get increasingly collaborative works, where is the line drawn? Let's say someone makes a Facebook app that lets multiple users create works of art together, or literature. There is another side to this issue.

      --
      Alphanos
    2. Re:Finally by Aeternitas827 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You have have dozens or even hundreds of backups of said data, which may or may not be fully accounted for.

      If anyone who has my personal data can't account for what they've done with it, that's a much bigger concern than not deleting it; quite frankly, if someone tells me they don't know where (X) went, how can they tell me that entity (Y) doesn't have it?

      --
      I don't post AC. I like my -1, Flamebaits. Trump/Sheen 2012 on the Batshit Insane ticket!
  2. Keeping your information private on Facebook... by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Keep your private information private by not posting it on Facebook!

    1. Re:Keeping your information private on Facebook... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The only way to do that is never use facebook at all, perhaps the solution I should adopt myself, but it's a bit too late.

      The problem I have been having is what other people in my network post about me. I have no control over that and no right to demand it be removed other than politely asking but most people dont listen to such requests because they dont understand why someone might care. Apart from being tagged in numerous photos most of the events i go to are listed as having me invited regardless of the fact I never read the invites.

      Basically from a careful computer aided study of facebook you can find out for the average user:

      A 3d model of their whole body with especially detailed facial features
      Their location a percentage of the time without variable certainty
      A fairly accurate weighted graph of most of their associates and friends (plus all the listed information about those people)
      A rough idea of their habits, personality and political leaning

      I am no privacy nut but this is more information than i want about me on the web. I think people fail to understand how much can be extrapolated from a massive database of small details.

  3. Re:Just add to the EULA... by zappepcs · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That one phrase is one of the most interesting and most insulting that can be used. Void where prohibited is the same as saying we're not sure where a judge will rule this illegal, but in case they do, you lose. Why not be user friendly (anyone remember that phrase?) and say what laws you ARE in compliance with, perhaps listing a reference to your licensing documents? Even lawyers are prohibited from practicing law in regions they are not licensed for. Yes, I realize that the WWW is not quite the same thing, but in the EULA you should mention all the regions where it is legal and above board since the L in EULA stands for license. As a user, if you don't know where you are in compliance, how the hell am I supposed to know? While 'buyer beware' always applies, in this day and age, it's not unreasonable to expect that a service list where it is in compliance with privacy laws in their privacy statement.

    As far as Facebook users should be concerned, if the government of Canada thinks there are privacy violations, there are... at least until Facebook clears the matter up unequivocally and publicly. After all, how can I in good faith sign or accept a EULA if I cannot be sure your service is in compliance with the applicable laws? DING That is to say that EULAs are wrong from word one, but staying on point, if there is to be one, shouldn't the burden be on the provider to show what privacy laws they are in compliance with?

    --
    Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
  4. Re:Just add to the EULA... by thirty-seven · · Score: 5, Informative

    As far as Facebook users should be concerned, if the government of Canada thinks there are privacy violations, there are...

    The Privacy Commissioner is an officer of parliament (who reports directly to the Senate and the House of Commons), not an official of the Government of Canada.

    --

    Atheism is a religion to the same extent that not collecting stamps is a hobby.

  5. Re:Canada? Does it matter? by Fractal+Dice · · Score: 4, Insightful

    More importantly to Canada, it means roughly a third of the entire country is on Facebook. That's getting into the realm of national security concerns when detailed information that much of your population resides in a foreign country.

  6. Re:Just add to the EULA... by BluBrick · · Score: 4, Funny

    I would first like to take this opportunity to complain about the size of the margins on the paper supplied to students...

    --
    Ahh - My eye!
    The doctor said I'm not supposed to get Slashdot in it!
  7. Re:Just add to the EULA... by vux984 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They do business with people within those nations, but are not actually situated within those nations, unless of course they have some headquarters in that nation (or locality).

    No. They don't need to headquarters in a nation. They don't even need a branch office. They don't need any staff at all. They only need to have a "presence".

    So what is a "presence"?

    Pretty much anything that is selling OR promoting your product or service in Canada would count -- "doing business in Canada".

    Facebook in particular has deals with the major wireless carriers to promote 'facebook on your mobile phone', and that would qualify it having a Canadian presence. It is actively doing business in Canada.

    But Joe Average American running a blog, per your example, is merely accessible from Canada, and he and his site don't have any Canadian presence.

    Now if facebook doesn't actually have any offices or staff in Canada, there's not really much that the Canadian government can do directly to them, even if they are deemed to have a presence. But it can go after facebooks canadian partners (such as the aforementioned wireless carriers) and force them to cease dealing with facebook which gives them some limited leverage over facebook insofar as they can make it so that if facebook wants to continue running promotions in Canada, and have its 'app' and 'bookmarks' and whatnot preloaded on phones then it has to meet whatever laws are in place.

    Meanwhile they would have zero leverage over your example Joe Average American blogger, who couldn't care what the Canadian governement does in Canada.