Slashdot Mirror
EPIC Files FTC Complaint Over Facebook's New Privacy Policy
An anonymous reader writes "The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) today filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission, asking the agency to investigate the recent changes made by Facebook to the privacy settings of Facebook users. The complaint discusses the sharing of user information with third-party developers and the new, widely-opposed 'Everyone' setting, which allows certain user information, such as name, profile picture, and friends lists, to be publicly available. EPIC also urges the FTC to compel Facebook to restore privacy safeguards. The complaint was signed by nine privacy and consumer organizations."
They just maintain an illusion of privacy, that's all.
Palm trees and 8
Prediction: In response to these new privacy concerns, Facebook will change their privacy policy, tightening up security over the information people are concerned about. At the same time, they will loosen security over other information, starting a new wave of complaints.
Let's be real - this is, what, the fourth or fifth time this sort of thing has happened and every time it does, Facebook changes their policy by tightening "here" while loosening "there". This will be no different.
Do you think they're doing it just because it sounds like Epic Fail?
Always proofread carefully to see if you any words out.
Feel free to confirm their fears by visiting their facebook page
i was going to release my site, ssnbook.com, where users could enter and exchange thier social security numbers. Now i'm worried someone to will file a complaint with the FTC against me :(
Let's see, we can either sue somebody, or use the helpful selection screen to change our privacy settings back to the way they were.
Lawsuit it is!
Isn't enough that I ruined a pony, making a gift for you?
Please tell me how I can make it so that my name, profile picture, and friends list would not be publicly available (short of quitting facebook).
kthnxbye
I honestly don't get why third parties would be getting involved in it. Sure, the privacy settings might not be to everyone's wishes but third parties complaining to the government to get them to interfere is just layering stupidity on top of stupidity.
What are these people trying to hide the fact that they're friends with Hitler or something?
^EOF
Lets be honest. How many more advertisement, apps, data mining opportunities would Facebook earn by making its privacy options really ensure privacy? Facebook would be out of business that way. But what is ridiculous is the owner of the company writing an open letter (with apology) stating that he will work to ensure greater privacy, while disabling even the existing measures that controlled several information (esp activity) of users. This is outright dishonesty and needs to be challenged. I prefer the honesty of some other companies that don't falsely claim to be respective of user's freedom and privacy rather than those whose rhetoric is high on values and action reminds of thugs. If they have to sell products with the aid of values, they'd better choose more 'practical' values. Practice what you do not preach ?
one man's constant is another man's variable.
I fully admit I'm pretty uninformed on this stuff - but why the FTC? What can they do about it? What control or influence do they have over what a private business does with their member's website?
EPIC FILE!
I used to work for NetQoS. I no longer do, but want to keep the excellent karma attached to this account.
Ever since I, somewhat reluctantly, started using Facebook, I have followed the simple policy of making everything I post as public as possible, while simply not posting anything I don't want any random web surfer to see. If this change will make more people snap out of their false sense of Facebook privacy, all the better, I say.
Headshot!
M-m-m-m-Monster Kill!
Oh, not that Epic. I feel so embarrassed. Does anyone else know how to get blood out of your Facebook profile?
The only dumb move, and I mean really dumb move, is that facebook didn't default all privacy settings to "no one" upon adding their new feature. Users need to opt in to things like this, not be forced to opt out. They opened a huge can of worms. Literally.
Am I the only one who thinks the new facebook is buggy as hell?
AJAX + unresponsive backend = awkward moment
If users don't like certain privacy policies, they can restore their privacy by leaving the privately owned site whose policy(ies) they disagree with.
Can someone sue because facebook allows photos to be right-clicked and saved? What if they started with some flash based photo system that didn't allow "easy" saving and later transitioned to one that did? Would that warrant a complaint to the FTC?
On the whole, we're still in the middle of a huge transition in the ways we communicate with each other, and the degrees to which we trust third parties with information that rightfully belongs to us. Facebook is no more accountable to its users than any other service; and no matter how much we might bitch and moan about changes in their privacy policies, the fact is that they are going to use our information in as many ways as they can to make money. Sharing information directly with third parties is the most obvious, but there are plenty of indirect means.
Now that we can't hide ourselves, we're bound to attract more friends. Every one of those relationships is a potential revenue stream, either directly or indirectly. Folks at MIT recently demonstrated that they can determine to a high probability who on Facebook is gay without knowing anything about them except their friends. I'm sure the same technique applies to religion, various types of hobbies, and a number of other things we don't always give as much thought to, like criminals, terrorists and the like. These affiliations and attributes have to be a gold mine for someone, and the policy changes are a new mother lode.
I'm glad that EPIC, FTC, etc., are interested in our privacy, as they can exert pressure to change things in ways that we as users cannot. What I'd really like to see out of all this might be some kind of formal privacy impact review before changes to social networking policies are made. Any change that degrades privacy would need to be identified by third parties, justified or mitigated by the social network, then reviewed again until it's clear that users will be better off after the change than they were before. I think that expecting users to flee a service following troublesome changes is unrealistic. The users are caught between a rock and a hard place, and Facebook will continue twisting their arms as long as the users are paying more attention to their friends and apps than they are to their privacy.
It will be sad, yet very interesting at the same time, to see what happens when lost privacy demonstrably results in crimes of various sorts. Facebook may find that its greed has a higher human price than it might ever have realized.
Because, let's be honest, people are too stupid for their own good.
Most people couldn't foresee this move (of course many /.ers did) so we have to sue and regulate on their behalf. Maybe they shouldn't even be allowed to vote, voting should require an IQ test, and a proficiency test in politics and public matters, throw in commerce too.
Or maybe not, I'm exaggerating, but really, what is the logic in not letting people smoke whatever they want but allowing them to sell their life in facebook? On many states prostitution and gambling are banned, adulthood for drinking and sex is based on an arbitrary number with no analysis supporting it and we don't even let people build their homes however they want, we don't even let people eat wherever they want regardless of the hygiene of the places they go.
But not on facebook, on facebook we are to believe every user is intelligent, informed and fully aware of the consequences of their actions.
But... the future refused to change.
The difference between the strawmen that you've thrown up and Facebook is that unlike homes and eateries, people can do without Facebook. As a society we have to develop health codes so that we can continue to live together and not all die of disease. The same thing goes with building codes. We can't have our neighbors building unstable structures that will collapse... or running gas pipes that will leak and explode... or water pipes that will burst and flood the neighborhood.
On the other hand, you can turn off your computer right now and never see Facebook again and your neighbors won't care. Your city won't be any worse off without Facebook.
Facebook and the various third parties involved with it and similar sites are simply marketers who have moved onto the next thing. Junk mail doesn't work. Telemarketing doesn't work. Yet all sorts of people are freely sharing information on the internet and that is where the marketing is being focused. "There is no such thing as a free lunch." still holds true on the internet. What right does anyone have to believe that a company like Facebook won't monetize their investment? Facebook didn't materialize out of nowhere simply so that people could have a convenient way to stay in touch with their friends and play free games. Those games aren't free. The servers that run the service and the internet connections that make the service accessible cost money. That money will be recouped somehow.
Well, as Facebook (and other"social networking sites) are thinly disguised data mining sites, why would anyone that uses such sites ever have had any expectation of privacy? The dats is sold to anyone who wants to pay for it as soon as it is entered on the site.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Too much of a wimp to say it eh ?
Unlike prostitution and gambling, people can do without Facebook.
Homes and eateries are just places you go when you run out of money enjoying the former activities.
I disagree. With as much personal identification as Facebook has, they should be taking a cautionary, responsible approach with how that information is collected, shared, used, and deleted.
If they can't, then, yes, they need oversight.
I'll grant the point about construction codes because of the gas pipes although as a IT person it sounds like securing a network WAN by controlling every node what kind of boggled architecture is that?
But I don't buy it about restaurants, nothing should prevent clients to get into the kitchen and asses for themselves the quality of the food, further more that says nothing about prohibitions on gambling, prostitution, marijuana, crack, heroine, cocaine, etc. And not only are many things prohibited to under-aged people, the states prevents me from supplying them with alcohol or the like, effectively telling me how I can raise my children.
I'm not saying this things are good, what I'm saying is that we do accept having the government tell us what we can't do for our own good, so there is nothing funtamentaly wrong about a non profit suing facebook and having the government enforce better privacy controls.
facebook is not a startup in some kid's garage. it's a huge billionaire corporation, it collects more information than the NSA for the FSM's sake! Let the government regulate the hell out of it.
But... the future refused to change.
If the FTC doesn't respond to their complaint, will this be reported in the press as an "EPIC Fail"?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
I don't understand why the FTC even has jurisdiction here. Remember folks, Facebook is FREE. That's right. You don't pay to sign up. True, they make money from advertising, but that doesn't constitute any kind of contractual relationship between Facebook and its users, implied or otherwise. (This is quite distinct from sale of a product or service, in which case the acceptance of money carries all sorts of implied warranties.) If you don't like their privacy policies, then don't use Facebook!
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
nothing should prevent clients to get into the kitchen and asses for themselves the quality of the food
Keep your dirty, coughing, sneezing, unwashed masses out of the kitchens, you biohazard.
You can't take the sky from me...
clients to get into the kitchen and asses for themselves the quality of the food
I'm no doctor; I have no idea what the "recommended temperature" is for e.g. a hamburger (equivalent to well done I think?). I have no idea how to tell whether a given piece of food is safe to eat (there are some obvious signs for "no, it's not remotely safe", but nothing to indicate "yes, it is safe").
$ make available
So it's much better than the government tells you? And doesn't just tell you forces you to follow their opinions on the risk/reward by not allowing a restaurant to serve things they deem unsafe.
As opposed to say being able to get a report from any of many competing restaurant rating providers who just tell you their opinion on the risk/reward, leaving you free to do what you want.
Facebook doesn't have any information that the users haven't entered of their own free will.
Yes changing privacy behind the user's back is a bad move and one would hope would be against the terms of service - if it isn't then sure it's not nice but that's what the user agreed to. If it is against the TOS then the users can chase up facebook about it themselves.
Ha. You think the ToS grants ANY benefits to users?
The point isn't that it's information people gave willingly, it's that there's a lot and, altogether, paints a much clearer picture of their lives. I know, I know. This is where stalkers, exs, black helicopters, marketers, fundamentalist christian bosses, and boogie-men are trotted out but there evidence of such abuses.
Now, I don't mean to make it all nanny state. If someone wants to post this stuff, that's their call. If a social networking company rolls their dice and everything goes their way and everyone flocks to them, that puts everyone's information under THEIR control. Their control, their responsibility. Default settings should be strict privacy and there should be clear, coherent, and concise statements about what they do with all the data they have. If people leave in droves after being explain of these things, then the company probably isn't acting in their interests.
I've pored through the new Facebook privacy settings. My main objection is that I can't leave my name/face indexable on Google and to Everyone, without leaving my list of friends also visible to Google/Everyone. I don't mind if Facebook Inc or my Friends or even Friends-of-Friends can see my whole social graph, but why the hell should that be totally totally public and indexable for all time for any viewer? That just doesn't make any sense to me.
...we don't even let people eat wherever they want regardless of the hygiene of the places they go.
That's not quite accurate. You CAN eat anywhere you want. You're fighting for a restaraunt owner's "right" to sell me poison food. I have no way of knowing how clean or filthy an establishment's kitchen is. If you're going to have the right to sell me a hamburger with e-coli on it, then I want the right to burn your restaraunt down when I can get off the toilet long enough.
Free Martian Whores!
I doubt the TOS includes anything favourable to the user, but then it's the user's fault for uploading any data they didn't want facebook to do anything they felt like doing with (like making it public).
Default settings should be whatever the hell facebook wants them to be. Again users don't have to use the stupid site.
I'm not arguing for that right, I'm arguing for personal responsibility of lack of it in the general public. We have lots of laws preventing people to hurt themselves for their lack of responsibility, I mean, we put warnings about items getting hot in the oven.
Considering that facebook collects more information about the population than a government agency I think it is completely reasonable to put restrictions on what they do with that data, even if the sheeple themselves aren't aware they need such restrictions.
But... the future refused to change.
Considering that facebook collects more information about the population than a government agency I think it is completely reasonable to put restrictions on what they do with that data
I agree 100%. It should be illegal for a company to sell your data in any case.
Free Martian Whores!