Senators Tell Facebook To Quit Sharing Users' Info

Hugh Pickens notes a USA Today story reporting that two US senators have joined Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) in telling Facebook to quit sharing more of its users' data than they signed up for. Politico.com ups USA Today's ante, saying that it was three more senators, not two more, who joined Schumer's call: Michael Bennet (D-CO), Mark Begich (D-AK), and Al Franken (D-MN). The senators are asking the FTC to look at Facebook's controversial new information-sharing policies, arguing that the massively popular social network overstepped its bounds when it began sharing user data with other websites. Sen. Schumer said he learned about the new rules from his daughter, who is in law school, but added that he's noticed no difference on his own Facebook page, which, he assured reporters, "is very boring." "I can attest to that," deadpanned Franken, who made his living as a comedian before entering the Senate, and whose Facebook followers outnumber Schumer's by ten to one.

Comments

turnabout?

[Skarecrow77]

Can I tell senators to stop sharing more of my money than the constitution they signed up for allows?

Re:turnabout?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can I tell senators to stop sharing more of my money than the constitution they signed up for allows?

Not worth it because a politician can find a way around any legally binding contract, even if they have to pass legislation to do it.

Re:turnabout?

[WrongSizeGlass]

How long before a "Stop telling us how to use Facebook, you Senators, you!" group shows up on Facebook? Hmmm, maybe I should have checked before posting this?

Re:turnabout?

[amicusNYCL]

The Senators aren't telling people how to use Facebook, they're telling Facebook how (not) to use their customer's data.

Re:turnabout?

[WrongSizeGlass]

And you expect most Facebook users to discern that difference? To them it will be 'Big Government' telling their Facebook how things should be & stepping on their social networking rights ...

Re:turnabout?

[lorenlal]

Or their impression is, "Some stuffy old guys are like totally pissed off that I want to have my cell number in my profile."

All the while, not really thinking about the possibility that someone is harvesting/selling/whatever with that information because it's "their" page. Quite simply - it took me a long time to understand why someone would care what sort of information I post out there than can be traced back to me for many (il)legit reasons. I obviously learned that lesson after creating my slashdot ID... *sigh*

Re:turnabout?

[amicusNYCL]

And you expect most Facebook users to discern that difference?

No, most users are apparently clueless and stupid and government regulation is required to protect them since they won't do it themselves.

The people who would argue with that are probably the same people who think that a democratically-elected group of legislators passing a bill which the majority agreed with means that we're living under a tyranny. Possibly even the same people who don't understand the difference between socialism, communism, fascism, and the Nazis.

Re:turnabout?

[Capt.DrumkenBum]

My +5 Insightful comment. "You Can't Legislate Away Stupidity"

Re:turnabout?

[The Spoonman]

Possibly even the same people who don't understand the difference between socialism, communism, fascism, and the Nazis.

'Round these parts, we calls them 'Mericans, boy! Spit-tooey!

Re:turnabout?

[gangien]

No, most users are apparently clueless and stupid and government regulation is required to protect them since they won't do it themselves.

Maybe they just have different priorities or don't care or whatever. But it's easier for you to assume they're just not as smart as you. That said, if facebook did an about face on their privacy statements, that's probably fraud. No need for any additional laws.

The people who would argue with that are probably the same people who think that a democratically-elected group of legislators passing a bill which the majority agreed with means that we're living under a tyranny

tyranny of the majority, not that i'm arguing every bill/law is tyranny, just that what you said doesn't mean tyranny is impossible. which is why, government is supposed to be limited in what it can do. In the US constitution there is a list of things that congress is allowed to do, and if it's not on that list, it's quite clearly not allowed to do it. But this get abused, because apparently the general welfare clause, means that government can do whatever it wants. thus our founders wasted their time writing all the other items that our government may do.

Re:turnabout?

[amicusNYCL]

Maybe they just have different priorities or don't care or whatever. But it's easier for you to assume they're just not as smart as you.

Regardless of what the cause is, if people aren't going to take steps to protect themselves, and if the government has an obligation to protect its people, then the only solution is regulation. I'm not trying to argue in favor of more government regulation, I'm just saying that if those assumptions hold, then the conclusion is more regulation. The opposite of government regulation is personal responsibility, and there's a notable lack of that floating around lately.

tyranny of the majority

"Tyranny of the majority" is just another way of describing democracy while using the word tyranny. The fact is that he head of state of the United States is not a tyrant. Within our laws it's not even possible for the holder of that office to become a tyrant.

Re:turnabout?

[gangien]

government has an obligation to protect its people, then the only solution is regulation.

I do not believe, the government has the obligation to protect people from hurting themselves.

"Tyranny of the majority" is just another way of describing democracy while using the word tyranny. The fact is that he head of state of the United States is not a tyrant. Within our laws it's not even possible for the holder of that office to become a tyrant.

"A government in which a single ruler (a tyrant) has absolute power."

Unrestricted democracy, is tyranny. if joe blow says that I can't dance on saturday nights(completely random example), and it so does the majority, bam it's voted, they win, that's tyranny. Which is my point, that government needed to be restricted. a democracy or a republic in and of itself is not good enough.

I don't think the president or congress is a tyrant. However, there are some tyrannical laws (such as drug laws)

Re:turnabout?

[amicusNYCL]

I do not believe, the government has the obligation to protect people from hurting themselves.

They aren't hurting themselves, they're being hurt by Facebook.

if joe blow says that I can't dance on saturday nights(completely random example), and it so does the majority, bam it's voted, they win, that's tyranny.

Tyranny for whom, for Joe Blow? Does Joe feel like he's living under a tyrant? If they have absolute power by definition, then why do they need to vote? Is it because they don't have absolute power? Is a group of people considered to be a single ruler? You quoted the definition of a tyranny, and then you went and gave an example which bears no relationship to a single ruler with absolute power. Any group of more than one person voting on an issue is by your definition not a tyranny. It doesn't really matter whether some people disagree with the outcome. Democracy doesn't mean that everyone needs to agree on one thing.

Re:turnabout?

[WrongSizeGlass]

Regardless of what the cause is, if people aren't going to take steps to protect themselves, and if the government has an obligation to protect its people, then the only solution is regulation.

At some point personal responsibility comes into play. If people are not going to protect themselves, or their personal data, then they need to rethink their priorities. If they post anything and everything about their lives on the internet then either they don't care or they don't understand. Does that mean the government should legislate that they be 'educated' about these facts until they 'understand' them?

I'm not a fan of FB or it's social 'fishing' experiment in data mining, but people need to understand that 'privacy' starts at home. If you make everything public you can't cry about it when everyone can read it.

Re:turnabout?

[gangien]

Tyranny for whom, for Joe Blow?

tyranny for the people who don't vote the same way as joe blow.

If they have absolute power by definition, then why do they need to vote?

if they voted that they wouldn't need the power then, i guess they wouldn't need to.

Is a group of people considered to be a single ruler?

i would say it's fairly indistinguishable as far as results go. Would you say, if you had 2 people that were tyrants, that's not tyranny? I would think it is.

you could, have 49% of the population exterminated, if 51% voted that way. That's tyranny of the majority.

Re:turnabout?

[NeutronCowboy]

Technically, any decision that is supported by less than 100% of the population in question is an illegitimate decision that is closer to tyranny than participatory democracy.

And since even the constitution can be amended with a sufficient number of ayes, tyranny of the majority is a way of life in modern democracies. The alternative is a tyranny of the minority.

Re:turnabout?

[dudpixel]

stop telling moderators how to moderate :P

Re:turnabout?

[Lehk228]

yet again, "personal responsibility" is nothing more than a gimme for corporations to shirk any and all of their responsibility.

Re:turnabout?

[Protoslo]

Thankfully, the Senators can "tell" anyone anything they want, but no one has to listen. They're apparently asking the FTC to make rules, but if this isn't illegal already I don't think there is much the FTC can realistically do about it. They don't have magical extra-legal rulemaking authority, only that granted by existing legislation.

The Senators do have the authority to propose new legislation, but unfortunately Chuck Schumer is leading the charge in this case, so I guarantee it wouldn't be anything that a civil libertarian (or really, anyone whose top priority isn't Thinking of The Children) would want to see. This time there is probably no cause for alarm, since it is clear that he only wants to posture and make headlines, not actually do something.

If Facebook arbitrarily changes its privacy policy, and then doesn't give users a chance to opt out (by deleting their data in lieu of accepting the new policy), we already have a legal remedy for that. Lawsuits. Class-action lawsuits. Bring it on! Hell, this is just the sort of thing that would appeal to another headline-seeking, ambitious New York politician, AG Andrew Cuomo. His similarly ambitious, headline-grabbing predecessor, the now-former Governor Elliot Spitzer, obtained a settlement from AOL over making it exceedingly difficult to cancel its service. If a lawsuit isn't viable in this case, I can only believe that the users are indeed bringing it on themselves.

Just don't encourage Schumer, please.

Re:turnabout?

[MaskedSlacker]

Well somebody has to do it--you've seen how incompetent they normally are.

Re:turnabout?

[GameboyRMH]

Hey, one more thing for your sig: 9) [NO CARRIER]

On-topic: If facebook were honest and forewarned all their users in detail about privacy changes, and handled the changes in a responsible way. I'd have a harder time supporting regulations against them. But since they have a long track record of springing surprise changes on their users and retroactively changing privacy settings on existing data (and using new defaults that loosen users' existing controls), I say regulate the fuckers.

Re:turnabout?

[amicusNYCL]

Would you say, if you had 2 people that were tyrants, that's not tyranny?

Uh, yeah I would, due to the fact that a tyranny is A SINGLE RULER WITH ABSOLUTE POWER. Two people with absolute power is, once again, by definition, not a tyranny. It's something else. Not everything where people get oppressed is a tyranny. There are many, many, many forms of oppression, such as mob rule, that are not tyrannies. The failure to understand that and lump every kind of oppression into the "tyranny" bucket is the issue here. I'm not saying that democratic voting does not result in some sort of oppression, all I'm saying is that it's TOTALLY DIFFERENT than a tyranny. How can you not understand this? Tyranny and oppression are not synonyms. One is a form of government, and one is a social condition.

you could, have 49% of the population exterminated, if 51% voted that way. That's tyranny of the majority.

No it's not. It's oppression, and it's genocide, but it's not tyranny. It is not a single person with absolute power, it's 51% of the people hating the other 49%. That is not a tyranny, it's a civil war.

Re:turnabout?

[amicusNYCL]

Technically, any decision that is supported by less than 100% of the population in question is an illegitimate decision that is closer to tyranny than participatory democracy.

It's completely disingenuous to say that. How about this:

Technically, any decision that is supported by more than 50% of the population in question is a decision that is closer to participatory democracy than tyranny.

Re:turnabout?

[gangien]

lol ok dude. single entity, single person. whatever, if you want to differentiate between them, go for it. their effects are the same. Personally, i'm more concerned about the results than what you call it.

Re:turnabout?

[amicusNYCL]

Right, so it's fine if we've got hoards of protesters calling the government fascist and tyrannical. It's all the same, right? You know what two of the leading causes of death are? Car accidents, and cancer. Both of those have the same effect, death, so obviously we can conclude that car accidents and cancer are the exact same thing. It doesn't matter if the causes are different, because the result is the same, so we might as well respond to the results instead of looking for the causes.

This level of logic and reasoning should really help to progress the national debate. I especially like the posters which show Obama as Hitler, and call him a socialist. It doesn't matter to those people that Hitler had many of the socialists in Germany, who were his enemies, murdered after he came to power. History and facts are irrelevant when the government dares to do something like pass a law to require health care. Clearly health care is a major threat to this nation and the constitution. That whole warrantless wiretapping thing done by the previous president and continued by the current, that's fine and dandy, there's no way in hell that something as innocent as eavesdropping on citizens without court approval could ever be used to infringe on our rights as Americans. Clearly the real danger is health care.

Thanks for helping to progress the national debate, you're doing some fine work. Clearly the only reasonable goal to strive for is a system of government where not a single citizen ever feels oppressed. Since this government does not meet that criterion, then clearly the correct course of action is to remove the government and install a new one. I'm sure no one will feel oppressed or disenfranchised if that were to happen.

Again, thanks for helping the country.

Re:turnabout?

[gangien]

Right, so it's fine if we've got hoards of protesters calling the government fascist and tyrannical. It's all the same, right? You know what two of the leading causes of death are? Car accidents, and cancer

You're not arguing about car accidents and cancer, you're arguing about 2 slightly different forms of cancer, that are formed in basically the same way, and have basically the same effects.

I especially like the posters which show Obama as Hitler, and call him a socialist.

I don't like comparing him to hitler. But then again comparing bush to hitler was the in thing to do, not so long ago. didn't lose any sleep over that, not gonna lose sleep over this.

As for calling him a socialist.. so what?

Clearly health care is a major threat to this nation and the constitution. That whole warrantless wiretapping thing done by the previous president and continued by the current, that's fine and dandy, there's no way in hell that something as innocent as eavesdropping on citizens without court approval could ever be used to infringe on our rights as Americans. Clearly the real danger is health care.

well i agree that we should be concerned about wiretapping, and i was hopefully obama wouldn't just continue bush's policies.. but that's all it was, was hope.

If you think that we're gonna to have socialized healthcare, and socialized heatlhcare means a drastic reduction in quality.. how is that not a threat? There's certainly no where in the constitution where it's allowed, but government doing things it's not supposed to is hardly new or unique to these last few decades.

Thanks for helping to progress the national debate, you're doing some fine work. Clearly the only reasonable goal to strive for is a system of government where not a single citizen ever feels oppressed. Since this government does not meet that criterion, then clearly the correct course of action is to remove the government and install a new one. I'm sure no one will feel oppressed or disenfranchised if that were to happen.

lol. i'm trying to have a discussion of sorts. you know, like civilized people are supposed to do? I never said i wanted to remove this government and install a new one, i said, i want to limit what government can do. You know, do what the constitution was created for. If you think democracy is all that's necessary, visit india. They have democracy there, and no, it's not because they're over populated.

Re:turnabout?

[amicusNYCL]

You're not arguing about car accidents and cancer, you're arguing about 2 slightly different forms of cancer, that are formed in basically the same way, and have basically the same effects.

Really? Representative democracy and tyranny are formed the same way, and have the same effects? Pray tell, what exactly distinguishes them?

If you think that we're gonna to have socialized healthcare, and socialized heatlhcare means a drastic reduction in quality.. how is that not a threat?

That's not what I think. If you can prove that socialized health care will result in a "drastic reduction of quality" for all concerned then we'll have a debate. I'm not going to debate a hypothetical situation or unproven assumption. One thing is a fact though: the US spends way more money on health care as a percentage of our GDP than the majority of other countries, yet our standard is lower. We spend more of our GDP than Germany, but Germany is still able to provide superior care to all of their citizens, even though we spend more and don't do that. This means that it's possible to both spend less and provide better care then we currently are. The entire system is a sham when a doctor is able to submit a bill for $150 for a Tylenol and expect it to get paid. I assume that would mean that I could walk in with a bottle of 100 Tylenol as payment for a $15,000 procedure, but for some reason it doesn't work that way.

I never said i wanted to remove this government and install a new one, i said, i want to limit what government can do.

No, you said that representative democracy and tyranny are the same thing, that it doesn't matter what you call them because they produce the same result. I wonder what someone who had to live under Pol Pot or Robert Mugabe would say if you told them that you live in a tyranny because we vote on issues and there's always a side which loses the vote. If you asked them if that was the same thing they faced, I wonder what they would say.

As for calling him a socialist.. so what?

Because he's not even close. Ask an American socialist if Obama is following their ideals. He's no more a socialist than he is a communist, so why all the bullshit rhetoric?

Re:turnabout?

[gangien]

Really? Representative democracy and tyranny are formed the same way, and have the same effects? Pray tell, what exactly distinguishes them?

Like i've said a bazillion times, limited government is important.

If you can prove that socialized health care will result in a "drastic reduction of quality" for all concerned then we'll have a debate. I'm not going to debate a hypothetical situation or unproven assumption.

Look at canada, look at the UK, look at what socializing industries has done. nothing very hypothetical about it. the cases where it looks like socializing medicine has worked, are in small countries such as sweden and holland. and they'll implode within our life times anyways.

ne thing is a fact though: the US spends way more money on health care as a percentage of our GDP than the majority of other countries, yet our standard is lower. We spend more of our GDP than Germany, but Germany is still able to provide superior care to all of their citizens, even though we spend more and don't do that.

We provide pretty good care to most. there are a few that do fall through the cracks. Another fact, the US started getting involved in medical care not so long ago, and look what's happened? costs have risen, adjusting for inflation.

but look at lasik. not covered by insurance, not really regulated. quality has gone up, price has come down. look at food, look at clothing, look at technology. where we let free markets occur, prices go down, quality goes up.

you live in a tyranny because we vote on issues and there's always a side which loses the vote.

where did i say that? i quite specifically said, we don't. we still have a government that is somewhat limited. I did say some laws are tyrannical, such as our drug laws. I have repeated over and over, that we need limited government. And that democracy(of one form or the other) in and of itself, is not going to lead to freedom.

Because he's not even close. Ask an American socialist [sp-usa.org] if Obama is following their ideals. He's no more a socialist than he is a communist, so why all the bullshit rhetoric?

complaining about bullshit rhetoric in politics is kind of redundant.

Re:turnabout?

[amicusNYCL]

Like i've said a bazillion times, limited government is important.

I agree with that, but even though it didn't even address my question I'll let it go.

the cases where it looks like socializing medicine has worked, are in small countries such as sweden and holland.

Right, small countries like Germany and France which have the 4th and 5th largest economies in the world ranked by GDP, the largest 2 economies in the EU. Germany spends $3328 per capita on health care, or 10.4% of their GDP. France spends $3554 per capita, or 11.1%. Canada spends $3672 per capita, or 10.0%. The US spends $6714 per capita, or 15.3% of our GDP which is nearly as large as the entire GDP for Europe. Those numbers come from the WHO. We're spending twice as much per capita as many other countries and still can't even manage to help everyone like they do.

Look at canada, look at the UK, look at what socializing industries has done.

Here's something fun to try: find someone from Canada, and ask them whether they would prefer the Canadian health system or the current US health system. See what they say.

and they'll implode within our life times anyways.

Wow, that's a great argument. We shouldn't do something because the countries that are currently succeeding at it are going to fail at some undetermined point in the future. That's some iron-clad reasoning right there.

Another fact, the US started getting involved in medical care not so long ago, and look what's happened? costs have risen, adjusting for inflation.

No shit, that's exactly why it needs to be fixed. Costs have risen, care has declined. That can be fixed.

but look at lasik. not covered by insurance, not really regulated. quality has gone up, price has come down.

That's because the technology has improved, genius, not because it's privatized.

where we let free markets occur, prices go down, quality goes up.

I do not believe that the government has an obligation to provide clothes and technology for its people. I do believe it has an obligation to provide medical care.

Re:turnabout?

[dudpixel]

haha true. Not sure if you noticed, my comment was actually a take-off of the second post...

Re:turnabout?

[gangien]

Right, small countries like Germany and France which have the 4th and 5th largest economies in the world ranked by GDP, the largest 2 economies in the EU. Germany spends $3328 per capita on health care, or 10.4% of their GDP. France spends $3554 per capita, or 11.1%. Canada spends $3672 per capita, or 10.0%. The US spends $6714 per capita, or 15.3% of our GDP which is nearly as large as the entire GDP for Europe. Those numbers come from the WHO. We're spending twice as much per capita as many other countries and still can't even manage to help everyone like they do.

I'm really not familiar with germany or france's situations. So i won't comment on them.

Here's something fun to try: find someone from Canada, and ask them whether they would prefer the Canadian health system or the current US health system. See what they say.

been there done that.

canadian 1, what? there's no problem's with canada's healthcare system.

canadian 2 there's a shit ton of people waiting around for care

canadian 3 there's problems in some of the provinces

canadian 4 the problems will go away when we build more hispitals

i think the general trend is, yeah it's not so bad, if you're healthy. but it'll sure suck when your dad dies because he's waiting into an ICU after a heart attack.

Wow, that's a great argument. We shouldn't do something because the countries that are currently succeeding at it are going to fail at some undetermined point in the future. That's some iron-clad reasoning right there.

well you're right, it's not. but it's what'll happen. it's what happens when we over regulate/socialize stuff. see communist countries. It took 70 years for the USSR to collapse, it was unavoidable, but I don't think you could predict when it would happen.

No shit, that's exactly why it needs to be fixed. Costs have risen, care has declined. That can be fixed.

notice, how this has happened since the US started getting involved?

That's because the technology has improved, genius, not because it's privatized.

why hasn't healthcare costs in general fallen, genius? there's certainly been a lot of technological improvements elsewhere.

I do not believe that the government has an obligation to provide clothes and technology for its people. I do believe it has an obligation to provide medical care.

WHy not food? why not clothing? you need both? Why not water? (which often does come from _local_ governments)? WHy didn't our founders say that government had to provide healtchare? they had doctors back then. If government can make costs go down and quality go up, why the fuck not everything? sounds fine to me, if government could make prices go down and quality go up, bring on the government!

Re:turnabout?

[amicusNYCL]

WHy didn't our founders say that government had to provide healtchare?

The constitution also didn't say that people had the right to free speech, nor the right to bear arms, nor the right to vote at 18, nor that people have the right not to be searched without a reason, etc etc etc. Why do you think the constitution has been amended 27 times? Times change, so do the needs of the country. Within 15 years of its creation the constitution had already been amended 10 times. The last time an amendment was proposed was 32 years ago. Maybe it's time for another one.

notice, how this has happened since the US started getting involved?

That's right, if there's one thing we know how to do, it's fuck up a system. That doesn't mean we can't eventually get it right, and it doesn't mean we should stop trying.

Universal health care is policy in all industrialized countries (except the United States which is currently in transition).
Surely you're not going to tell me that every other industrialized nation except the US is in imminent danger of failing.

Germany has the world's oldest universal health care system, with origins dating back to Otto von Bismarck's social legislation, which included the Health Insurance Bill of 1883, Accident Insurance Bill of 1884, and Old Age and Disability Insurance Bill of 1889.

We have almost 130 years of experience to look at. It's no wonder that Germany is the model for the bill which was passed.

Most current universal health care systems were implemented in the period following the Second World War as a process of deliberate health care reform, intended to make health care available to all, in the spirit of Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, signed by every country doing so. The US did not ratify the social and economic rights sections, including Article 25's right to health.

Some more interesting reading here:

Are Patients in Universal Healthcare Countries Less Satisfied?

Some interesting data in those tables.

Here's a personal story as well: in 2003 I was finishing up college and living in a house with 4 other roommates, two couples. One of them was a guy who didn't take very good care of himself, without going into too much detail it was pretty clear that his immune system wasn't very strong because of how he treated his body. During February and March of that year he became sick, he just had a flu or cold or something like that. One Sunday I saw him walking from the basement to his room sort of staggering, he seemed pretty tired. Later that evening his girlfriend reported that she wasn't able to wake him. We called the medics, got some firemen there to lift him out of bed (he was crying, not knowing where he was, very out of it). His parents transported him to the hospital, where he became combative with the staff. They sedated him, and it put him in a coma for the next several years. He eventually awoke, but never spoke, did not recognize anyone, couldn't eat, etc. He spent about 5 years in various hospitals and clinics, including the reknowned Barrow Neurological Center here in Phoenix. Each year of his care cost his parents several hundred thousand dollars. Each year. He eventually died in a hospice due to complications that occured there.

The single reason he didn't go to the doctor when he originally got sick, which lasted for over a month, was because he did not have insurance and didn't want to pay so much just to go get an antibacterial. He told me exactly that when I asked him why he wasn't going to the doctor. The infection turned into menengitis, and that was that. He was 22 when he got sick. The end result was death and around a million dollars in health bills for his parents.

The US has the highest GDP in the world, by a lot. We can do better than that.

Re:turnabout?

[gangien]

The constitution also didn't say that people had the right to free speech, nor the right to bear arms, nor the right to vote at 18, nor that people have the right not to be searched without a reason, etc etc etc. Why do you think the constitution has been amended 27 times? Times change, so do the needs of the country. Within 15 years of its creation the constitution had already been amended 10 times. The last time an amendment was proposed was 32 years ago. Maybe it's time for another one.

fine so amend it. it'll still be stupid, but it'll atleast be legal.

That's right, if there's one thing we know how to do, it's fuck up a system. That doesn't mean we can't eventually get it right, and it doesn't mean we should stop trying.

So, we had a decent system before government started meddling, and you want to do more meddling.

I never said universal healthcare will fail immediately. i've made the point that it takes time(just like everything we socialize does). I've also never said our current system is great either. Our current system is quite fucked up, and leads to the situation that happened with your friend.

The US has the highest GDP in the world, by a lot. We can do better than that.

and how did we get to that position? a thing called freedom. Freedom is all we really need, but it means freedom economically and socially. You don't want economic freedom, you want government control. It will not work. it will make our situation worse. This bill forces people to buy insurance. Take about an insurance company's dream.

Re:turnabout?

[amicusNYCL]

So, we had a decent system before government started meddling

Not necessarily. We had a system which fit the state that the country was in decades ago. That's not the same system we should be using now. That's like the RIAA trying to still sell everyone vinyl records. Times have changed, needs have changed.

You don't want economic freedom, you want government control.

I've never stated anything which should cause you to think that I value government control over economic freedom. Economic freedom is the backbone of this country. Economic freedom has nothing to do with the government providing health care to its citizens, and it's disingenuous for you to say that if you are in favor of government health care that you are also opposed to freedom. You still have the freedom to pay for your own health care. This bill does not remove any options you currently have, it simply gives new options to people who don't currently have them.

This bill forces people to buy insurance.

I have not read the hundreds of pages in the bill, so I frankly don't know what it says (and I'm smarter than thinking that the "information" coming from Fox is remotely accurate - you're not going to be jailed, either). I'm not even arguing that the current bill is the solution to all of our problems. I do find it interesting though that the Republicans asked for several changes to the bill, which they were given, and then not a damn one of them voted for it. Why make the changes if it's not going to change any minds? That's where reform needs to start, in Congress. The Democrats and Republicans have had it too good for too long, they're lazy now. We need people in there who want to be there because they want to help. It's the same bullshit going on with our new immigration bill, everyone all of a sudden hates us for daring to make a law, but the only thing anyone else is doing is talking. It doesn't help, you need to make changes, see if they work, if they don't work then figure out why and change it again.

Re:turnabout?

[gangien]

Not necessarily. We had a system which fit the state that the country was in decades ago. That's not the same system we should be using now. That's like the RIAA trying to still sell everyone vinyl records. Times have changed, needs have changed.

The laws should be fundamental and rarely need to be changed. The proper role of government, in my view, is to protect freedom. there's nothing that's changed that requires different laws from 70 years ago.

I've never stated anything which should cause you to think that I value government control over economic freedom.

You stated heatlhcare should be a right. that affects, quite significantly, economic freedom.

I have not read the hundreds of pages in the bill, so I frankly don't know what it says

I don't know the details of the bill either, but this is a pretty key point that i don't think is in dispute.

Re:turnabout?

[raymondpl]

I agree

Dude, fuck facebook, seriously!

[Anonymous Coward]

Signed, Stan Marsh.

Now that the economy is rocking

[Anonymous Coward]

Part of me finds it hard to believe that Facebook is #2 on the agenda.

Re:Now that the economy is rocking

[greyline]

Ever hear of multitasking? People can work on more than one thing at a time.

It's kind of sad...

[Daetrin]

It's kind of sad that apparently one of our more intelligent congresscritters, one who's willing to speak out for consumer rights at least (no matter how silly this case may actually be according to some people) "started out" as a comedian. But i guess if you're using lifetime politicians as a baseline...

Re:It's kind of sad...

[Moryath]

It amazes me that he ever made any sort of a living as a "comedian", given that his entire "funny" schtick (yes, I read his books... *shudder*) is calling his political opponents foul-mouthed names.

Maybe that appeals to a certain portion of the population. Or else that's a sad sign of how far political discourse has fallen.

Re:It's kind of sad...

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

The obvious solution is to elect Dennis Miller. He can provide a conservative counter-weight to Franken and with his rants I smell new records in filibustering.

Re:It's kind of sad...

[Moryath]

"filibustering" doesn't quite mean what you think it means. In the old days you actually had to keep talking. Eventually, everyone would get tired, pass out, leave the floor, and talking would end.

These days, they "agree to filibuster", table the motion, and that's that. No actual talking needed. It's a bastardization of process that both sides are guilty of signing on to.

Re:It's kind of sad...

[mweather]

It amazes me that he ever made any sort of a living as a "comedian", given that his entire "funny" schtick (yes, I read his books... *shudder*) is calling his political opponents foul-mouthed names

You do realise the man was one of the original writers for SNL, right? He didn't get into political comedy until his comedy career's third decade.

Re:It's kind of sad...

[DragonWriter]

It amazes me that he ever made any sort of a living as a "comedian", given that his entire "funny" schtick (yes, I read his books... *shudder*) is calling his political opponents foul-mouthed names.

Franken's comedy is mostly in TV, both as a writer and performer. Contrary to TFS, Franken worked largely as a political commentator (both as a writer and a talk-radio host) from at least 2003, and less as a comedian.

Further, if you'd actually read his books, you would know that, even for the political books, that's not an accurate description of their content, though with a suitably loose definition of "foul-mouthed", it might accurately describe their titles.

Re:It's kind of sad...

[copponex]

In many ways I'm still a Hubert Humphrey Democrat -- someone who believes in afflicting the comfortable and comforting the afflicted. A society is judged by how it treats the elderly, the sick, the impoverished. To me it's a matter of ethics and compassion. -Al Franken

We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. -Ann Coulter

Yeah, about that political discourse...

Re:It's kind of sad...

[Vinegar Joe]

Maybe that appeals to a certain portion of the population.

People get the leaders they deserve.

Re:It's kind of sad...

[Anonymous Coward]

People get the leaders they deserve.

I'm sure those ruled by Saddam Hussien, Fidel Castro, and Pol Pot concur.

Re:It's kind of sad...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure those ruled by Saddam Hussien, Fidel Castro, and Pol Pot concur.

Tell it to Noam Chomsky.

Re:It's kind of sad...

[MartinSchou]

We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. -Ann Coulter

How about we declare Ann Coulter's home a new country for a few days? That way she can have two out of three of her wishes fulfilled, AND she'll get a front row seat to the spectacle.

Also, film step three. I'd love to see some fundamental right wing Christian nutter trying to convert three cats and a gold fish.

Re:It's kind of sad...

[e2d2]

It beats another "I'm rich and white so I must be your leader". Although technically he is rich and white. Damn it! Foiled again by reality!

Re:It's kind of sad...

[postbigbang]

And she's probably registered to vote in each country. She apparently likes that: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/08/ann-coulter-under-investi_n_165007.html

Re:It's kind of sad...

[fahrbot-bot]

It's kind of sad that apparently one of our more intelligent congress critters ... "started out" as a comedian. But i guess if you're using lifetime politicians as a baseline...

Um, the same could be said for a certain actor who became president, or singer who became a congressman, or village idiot that became president...

Re:It's kind of sad...

[L0rdJedi]

Here's Coulter's quote in context http://old.nationalreview.com/coulter/coulter.shtml And here's the video where she explains it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJfGmaDrXJQ

As far as Franken is concerned, if he believes that people should help each other (which I do as well), then why does he need government involvment? I certainly don't need any help from the government to give food to the nearby food bank or donate clothes to those in need. In fact, more government regulation to "help those that need it" usually ends up doing the opposite.

You do not need the government to help the poor, downtrodden, unfortunate, or anyone else down on their luck. You need to get off your ass and get involved in your community. Help your neighbor when they need help. Volunteer with local charities. Help people that need help instead of continually asking the government to do it. That just invites fraud and abuse.

Re:It's kind of sad...

[Enderandrew]

You're suggesting he didn't write political comedy for SNL?

Re:It's kind of sad...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, Franken made the transition from comedian to joke.

Re:It's kind of sad...

[corbettw]

No I think he's suggesting SNL was once a comedy program. Personally, I find that difficult to believe.

Re:It's kind of sad...

[e2d2]

Ann Coulter is Franken's equal? What kind of Bizzaro world did I just land in?

Re:It's kind of sad...

[halivar]

Having government take care of the needy absolves us of the moral responsibility to give a damn anymore. We can get our warm fuzzies by pulling a lever instead of putting in our own time and effort to improve the human condition.

Re:It's kind of sad...

[Anonymous Coward]

In many ways I'm still a Hubert Humphrey Democrat -- someone who believes in afflicting the comfortable and comforting the afflicted. A society is judged by how it treats the elderly, the sick, the impoverished. To me it's a matter of ethics and compassion. -Al Franken

We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. -Ann Coulter

Yeah, about that political discourse...

Actual quotes?!? What a novel concept.

Re:It's kind of sad...

[poetmatt]

yet, he seems to understand his issues significantly better than well, all the grandstanding politicians we know and hate. Maybe it's because he actually reads things instead of just following the whip.

Re:It's kind of sad...

[Moryath]

If the highlight of their "comedy" is the "I'm on a boat" sketch... *shudder*. They stopped being funny about a decade ago.

Re:It's kind of sad...

[PCM2]

Oh come now, this is just more "get off my lawn" sour grapes. Every new generation that comes along thinks SNL stopped being funny about a decade ago.

Re:It's kind of sad...

[HeckRuler]

Regardless about how much I help out myself, I'd still rather elect the guy who wants to help people then the person who wants to go kill people if it's all the same to you.

Re:It's kind of sad...

[Locke2005]

His political books like Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot were only a small facet of his career in comedy. My biggest objections to his books is he always says something like "I'm not going to stoop to the same level as the Republicans" just before stooping to the same level as the Republicans. Apparently he thinks this is being "ironic". His Stuart Smalley books sucked. However, his body of work on SNL was world class IMHO.

Re:It's kind of sad...

[stewbacca]

How do you improve on a 100% filibuster rate?

Re:It's kind of sad...

[Locke2005]

You just can't compare the two. Coulter has a much bigger adam's apple.

Re:It's kind of sad...

[stewbacca]

Oh come now, this is just more "get off my lawn" sour grapes. Every new generation that comes along thinks SNL stopped being funny about a decade ago.

I know an SNL writer and he tells me that SNL is no longer funny because Lorne Michaels has his pet writers who actually are no longer funny. The writers who are actually funny have no power and their stuff is chosen less frequently than the old guard. I find this ironic, since I too think that SNL hasn't been funny since about the Mike Meyers-Dana Carvey era, which means the old writers should be funny. However, by "old", I think my friend means the writers that came along during the Norm what's his face years (he was funny, the rest of the cast since then has been downhill).

Even without my little anecdote, I think it's a stretch to argue against the fact that SNL has been decreasing in quality since about the mid 1990s. It doesn't take an "get off my lawn" moment to realize this.

Re:It's kind of sad...

[an unsound mind]

Thing is, "moral responsibility" or not, most people still won't help the helpless.

I'm badly disabled and damn glad I live somewhere more civilized than the US - the chances I'd get the very expensive medical care I need in the US are... kinda low. Made worse by the fact I can't work.

Re:It's kind of sad...

[Locke2005]

The village idiot just proves the old adage, "It's not what you know, it's who you know!" The actor is actually doing a fairly decent job. The "singer"?!? Well, he was a better comedian than singer, and to this day I cannot figure out how he actually got elected.

Re:It's kind of sad...

[DeadDecoy]

I could kinda watch SNL back 5-10 years, but it seems to have significantly gotten worse. A lot of the 'jokes/skits' just seemed forced by actors whose careers are going nowhere. Sometimes if feels like they're recycling a comedic framework that worked back in the 80s, but not so much now; i.e. exaggerated gestures and poor/overdone inflections to let the audience 'know' when something is funny.

Re:It's kind of sad...

[Archangel Michael]

You're absolutely right! Ann has been much funnier than Al for YEARS!!!

Re:It's kind of sad...

[LandDolphin]

Pros and Cons to the bastardization.

At least now it takes 41 members to call a filibuster and bring Congress to a hault. Previously a single member of Congress could bring Congress to a hault.

Re:It's kind of sad...

[Moryath]

The quality of the actors is going downhill. Their guys used to be able to ad-lib and work around a forgotten line or failed joke. And none of them looked as if they were just reading off a teleprompter - some of the physical stuff the stars used to do made that pretty much impossible!

Taking the current past THREE generations (going back roundabout to 1996), it's just not the case any more. Most of the "sketches" are just people standing around reading off of a teleprompter, and the jokes are getting progressively lamer. I'm not a fan of certain writers' constant trying to insert political commentary in and pass it off as "jokes" either. Tina Fey isn't funny as Palin, and whatsisface isn't funny doing Obama bits either.

Re:It's kind of sad...

[icebraining]

Bollocks. Money is time. I'm giving a part of my paid time to the needy, indirectly.

In fact, it's better, because eight people giving one hour per day of their time provides much lower results than one person working full time. In fact, isn't that one of the points of the Mythical Man-Month?

I agree we should take more care about our close relatives - I despise most people who put their (grand)parents in retirement homes.

Re:It's kind of sad...

[Chibi Merrow]

As long as the guy who wants to help people isn't doing so by shaking me down for the money to do it, it's all the same for me.

Re:It's kind of sad...

[copponex]

First of all, Ann Coulter is worthless human being. She has capitalized on the tragedy of 9/11 by preaching hate. She's nothing more than a reeking blonde vulture, desperately clawing at the carcass of terrorism for the last bits of money she can dig out, all the while claiming she's the only one who cares. Anyway.

You do not need the government to help the poor, downtrodden, unfortunate, or anyone else down on their luck.

You don't need the government to fight wars, do you? Just get together with your friends, build an aircraft carrier, manufacture all the weapons, and drive that shit over there. Government would only get in the way of such a complicated operation, right?

Obviously not. Certain institutions, when socialized, provide better services to a greater amount of people. That's why our military is the best in the world - we spend all of our money on it.

It's the same reason why the Constitution gave the power to the government to build roads and post offices. Infrastructure is what makes a nation strong and resilient, and this includes the infrastructure that takes care of the needy.

Re:It's kind of sad...

[Anonymous Coward]

Pros and Cons to the bastardization.

At least now it takes 41 members to call a filibuster and bring Congress to a hault. Previously a single member of Congress could bring Congress to a hault.

Congress doing nothing is far better than Congress doing something. All they do is mess things up even worse and create new problems.

Re:It's kind of sad...

[sherlockholmes]

This is true and we have had examples of this over and over again. The more a state or NGO takes care of these things, the less regular people generally do. When people think someone else will come in and solve the issue, the less likely they will do the same. It's the Scrooge mentality. If there are institutions to take care of things, why should I give a care. My taxes pay for it so why should I do anything else.

Re:It's kind of sad...

[oblio_one]

The actor is actually doing a fairly decent job. .

He's currently doing very little actually... Suppose you might be thinking of California's Governor not the OP's reference.

Re:It's kind of sad...

[Locke2005]

My bad... yes, I was thinking of Schwarzenegger, not Reagan. Reagan ran up record deficits both as Governor of California and as POTUS, and yet "fiscal conservatives" still claim him as their patron saint... go figure. Yes, he was a really likable guy, but his presidency appears to have been rather overrated.

Re:It's kind of sad...

[countertrolling]

Or we could spend our time seeing that the government does the job right. Not bloody likely, but hey.. the choice is there.. I'm a bit more results oriented than some, so please, permit me to pick what I think is the best method to "improve the human condition". Let me do my thing and send the money off to let the professionals do theirs

Re:It's kind of sad...

[countertrolling]

What, is it okay for the war monger to shake you down?

Look, it's either me or them. You're gettin' fucked one way or the other.

Re:It's kind of sad...

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this about helping people or is it about feeling good about it ?

Re:It's kind of sad...

[jonadab]

You know, everybody thinks being a comedian sounds "easy".

Until they try it. It's actually quite hard. To be any good at it, you need to be intelligent, creative, and witty *and* have strong people skills (e.g., to be able to read the audience), and all of that in one person is not a particularly common combination.

I'm not saying I'm going to vote for Dave Barry for President or anything. But when you're looking at somebody's qualifications for office, comedian as a former job title is not in itself worrisome. I'd be rather more worried about somebody who used to be a lawyer.

Re:It's kind of sad...

[Bing Tsher E]

One question I have is: when you bring Congress to a halt, is the term for that Progress?

Re:It's kind of sad...

[Bing Tsher E]

Every new generation that comes along thinks SNL stopped being funny about a decade ago.

True. And one of the only things funny about SNL is that they're all right.

Re:It's kind of sad...

[Bing Tsher E]

No. It's not ok for that guy to do it either. I'm glad we've straightened this out and come to an agreement.

Re:It's kind of sad...

[Bing Tsher E]

Infrastructure is what makes a nation strong and resilient

Strong nations are not necessarily a good thing. Resilience just means nobody can talk back to the bureaucrats and get away with it.

With your starry-eyed optimism, I am sure everything will be alright. Have you contributed that extra money above your required taxes to the government yet? You do know that you can send more than the minimum to the IRS, don't you?

Re:It's kind of sad...

[Anonymous Coward]

Reagan signed major gun control bills while in both offices, invented "reaganomics" and ran up the deficits you mention. Fucking hate the guy, and don't understand why conservatives love him.

Re:It's kind of sad...

[Anonymous Coward]

The person who wants to kill them is shaking you down for the money to buy bullets. Why does she get a free pass?

Re:It's kind of sad...

[Chibi Merrow]

I didn't say it was okay for them to do it either.

But at least they'd be doing something constructive with the money. :)

Re:It's kind of sad...

[X.mpls]

I'm not sure about intelligent. Sure he went to Harvard, but the man made his money and reputation of cynicism and rude sarcasm. He's a political hack on the same level as Jon Stewart. And if this is the most he's doing while in congress, that makes it even worse that we Minnesotans preferred him over an actual politician.

Re:It's kind of sad...

[Comen]

At least the something he is doing is to benifit people that vote, and not a company that puts money in pockets.
I think this is a actually a bigger issue and could be a warning to other companies that allot of the games they are using to get people on free sites then changing the rules later to make bigger profits off the data is not ok, but oh well.

Re:It's kind of sad...

[Hurricane78]

Why? No. Comedians are excellent social critics. After all that’s half their job. And their other half is excelling in diplomatics, by even making people laugh when you call out their failures.
I’d say they are much better than having any lawyer in the government. :)

Re:It's kind of sad...

[ichimunki]

At least the something he is doing is to benifit people that vote, and not a company that puts money in pockets.

Because if there's one thing I hate it is money in pockets! That's why I'm glad Senator Franken gets paid well into the six figures to help scold private businesses for how they treat their non-paying "customers". I guess the money in *his* pockets doesn't count? Because what with the bailouts and health-care bill he voted for, I'm sure going to have a lot less money in *my* pockets, in spite of the best efforts of the company I work for to pay me a decent salary.

Please note: The whole reason companies exist is to put money in pockets. The pockets of those who risk their money to start the company and those who put in their time and ability to make the company successful. If you don't like how Facebook runs their business feel free to not sign on to their system.

Re:It's kind of sad...

[HeckRuler]

But at least they'd be doing something constructive with the money. :)

Without that little smiley in there I'd assume you were serious and that you considered giving money to Ann Fucking Coulter to buy bullets to kill muslims with to be a constructive activity. I'd call you a war-mongerer and one of the best examples of modern-day evil that America has to offer. I'd lambaste you for the blowback that would come back to bite both of us. I'd curse a pox upon you and all your house.

But hey, you were just joking. :)

Re:It's kind of sad...

[Chibi Merrow]

Well it was either the smiley or the sarcasm tag, and I've never really liked the sarcasm tag...

i dont care either way

[meow27]

because i have 0 facebook friends.

Re:i dont care either way

[Yvan256]

Kip Drordy has a Slashdot account?

Re:i dont care either way

[Locke2005]

i can see why.

Re:i dont care either way

[Anonymous Coward]

because i have 0 facebook friends.

Let me correct that for you:

s/facebook//

Re:i dont care either way

[antdude]

Kip Drordy is on /. too? Wow.

Re:i dont care either way

[Hurricane78]

OMG. Me too! We should totally hang out sometime!

Any chance you also like sex and money?

Problem

[skine]

The major problem I see here is that Facebook is allowed to change its terms without notifying anyone.

Re:Problem

[Thanatiel]

The problem is that most of the Facebook users didn't closed their account when it happened.

Re:Problem

[BabyDuckHat]

But their terms say they can.

Re:Problem

[AnonymousClown]

All websites say in their "Terms of Service" or equivalent some variation of this:

"We reserve the right to change these terms at anytime."

So, it's not just Facebook, it every website on the net.

Re:Problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, in the guise of new and great features, "We will collect any and all information we can about you and share it with everyone at any time. Don't worry, it's a feature!"

Re:Problem

[macraig]

We gave away the keys to that farm a LONG time ago. How long have credit card, telecom, and pretty much every corporate service provider been allowed to have legal contracts - AKA service agreements or terms of service - that explicitly specify that they are allowed to change the terms of the contract without notice at any time?

That stipulation is completely contrary to common-sense contractual law and logic, yet they've been getting away with it for decades now. How is that?

Re:Problem

[EvilBudMan]

Umm.......that's part of the original terms.

-Subject to change without notice-

This basically means they can do anything.

Re:Problem

[Lije Baley]

"I have altered the deal. Pray that I don't alter it further."

Re:Problem

[cynyr]

you can close and have your data deleted from facebook? do you have a list of detailed steps to go about that?

Re:Problem

[cynyr]

and that i can't then quit and have all references of me purged.

Re:Problem

[dave562]

On the subject of credit cards you are wrong. They have to notify you in writing when they change their terms of service. Unless you opt out and close your account, you implicitly agree to the new terms. The new consumer protection laws that passed now stipulate that if the card companies change their terms and you don't agree, they have to freeze your account at whatever the terms were before they changed them. You cannot continue to use the account but you can continue to pay it off without any additional penalities, but still subject to the original terms (late / missed payment fees, etc).

In reality the only people who are to blame for poor credit card terms of service are the people who use credit cards. It seems like a portion of population is under the misguided notion that access to credit is a God given right. It isn't. If anything credit is an invention of Satan. It should be used sparingly and responsibly. Other than the occassional cases where people fall onto hard times and use their credit cards to get by, most people are in debt because they decided they wanted something RIGHT NOW and figured that the interest charges were worth it.

Re:Problem

[SheeEttin]

http://www.facebook.com/fbsitegovernance

Re:Problem

[Enderandrew]

I went through the process of asking to have my account deleted. I stopped using Facebook for over a year. A quick Google search still showed my profile as visible. I went back to the site a year later, and logged in just fine. My account never went anywhere and was never deleted.

The real problem here is that Facebook pledged on their website that information was going to be private. Now they're sharing that very information and not even giving you any option to opt-out of it. They lied to all their users.

Could it be said they defrauder users for information that they've deemed valuable enough to sell to partner sites?

This is a major misstep.

Re:Problem

[Anonymous Coward]

You can close your Facebook account, but they retain your information for something like 18 months after your account closes. It's disclosed in documents administered to law enforcement and what they can request, how much, etc. These were leaked awhile ago, as I recall? Google, imo.

Re:Problem

[dgatwood]

And in every case, it's not worth the bits it is printed on.

Terms of a contract cannot be changed at-will by a single party. There cannot legally be a meeting of the minds if one party is not aware of the updated terms. Facebook provided no notice that their terms of service were changing and offered no opportunity to preemptively decline the new terms. As such, Facebook's new terms of service are prima facie invalid. There is no possibility whatsoever that a court would side with Facebook on this one if it ever went to court. Companies that place such terms in their contracts either A. require you to agree to the new terms on next login (which Facebook usually does not), or B. are hoping the public never notice (which Facebook apparently does).

Thus, these contract terms are already completely bogus. What we really need are laws that provide for the following:

• Any lawyer who creates a contract with foreknowledge that a term in the contract is invalid shall be disbarred and banned from all practice of law (including corporate) for a period of five years on the first offense, permanently on the second.
• Any lawyer who unknowingly creates a contract with invalid terms that were invalid at the time the contract was created shall be disbarred for 1 year and required to attend one year of retraining at the law school of his/her choice.
• Any corporation creating a contract with terms that are not valid under U.S. law shall be liable for fines of $1 million per occurrence or 50% of net profit from the previous year, whichever is greater.
• Any corporation knowingly creating a contract with terms that are not valid under U.S. law shall be liable for fines of $10 million per occurrence or 200% of net profit from the previous year, whichever is greater.

It's not enough for the contract terms to be invalid. They're already invalid now and companies still pull this crap. We need laws with actual teeth that punish companies who deliberately abuse contract law.

In the case of Facebook right now, the only real question is whether their new terms constitute a breach of their old terms and invalidate any rights they have to users' data or not. I suspect that depends more on the mood of the judge, should this ever go to court. Facebook is in a rather untenable legal position, IMHO, and their legal team should be canned en masse.

Re:Problem

[ChefInnocent]

Corporations are sneaky critters. They'd probably use Hollywood Accounting. It's best to go after their gross revenues than net profits.

Re:Problem

[stewbacca]

They are not guilty of not notifying anyone. I got a big dialog the first time I logged in after they changed the policy. I couldn't do anything on Facebook until I acknowledged the new terms.

Re:Problem

[coolgeek]

What do you expect from a sociopath that stole the idea from his clients?

Re:Problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Except you are using THEIR service so THEY get to dictate the terms and you accepted their "we can change it at any time". It's a "service" and yes they can.

Re:Problem

[Nugoo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NPuY9ZcME4

Re:Problem

[theanyday]

you can close and have your data deleted from facebook? do you have a list of detailed steps to go about that?

Go here: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=16929680703

Re:Problem

[zuperduperman]

> most of the Facebook users didn't closed their account when it happened.

Which is actually a cousin of the problem that Facebook is a walled garden that sucks information in but won't let it out. If people could just hit an 'export' button (or an 'import' button at another site) and get everything out of Facebook and maintain their existing connections then people probably would leave. But they can't, so they don't.

And this is why most of us geeks keep whining about 'portability' and 'walled gardens' and getting dismissed as a annoying whining geeks all the time. But this is where it matters, in the end.

Re:Problem

[donaggie03]

So? You make it a point to emphasize that it is a service that they provide to you. And somehow this makes it ok for them to change their terms of service at any time? Suppose I own a house cleaning business. Each of my customers signs a service agreement that says I will clean their house every week and I will then charge their credit card for a specific amount after each cleaning. The fine print says I can change the agreement at any time. A few weeks into the agreement, I decide to start charging the credit card twice as much as usual. Which is ok because I can change the agreement at any time right? Do you really think that logic would hold up in court?

Re:Problem

[dgatwood]

It's a "service" and yes they can.

I'm guessing you've never taken a single class in contract law. This is not even a grey area, IMHO.

Yes, it is true that they can change the terms at any time, but until such time as you agree to those changed terms, they have no right to operate under the assumption that you have agreed to them as Facebook does. More to the point, if the change to the terms is considered large enough to constitute a substantive change to the nature of the contract, they are required to explicitly get agreement to the updated terms or else the new contract is NOT valid.

This is very basic law, people. We're talking first year of law school. Heck, I'm not a lawyer and even I know enough about contract law to know that these terms are invalid. Some citations to start you off:

• Union Pac. R.R. v. Chi., Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pac. R.R. (among other things, ruled that a substantive change is sufficient to make a contract invalid)
• Affirmed by Douglas v. US District Court ex rel Talk America, and a blog about the case

And a few older ones that I didn't have time to find links for:

• Hanson v. Puget Sound Navigation Co., 52 Wash.2d 124, 323 P.2d 655 (1958)
• Marnon v. Vaughan Motor Co., 184 Or. 103, 194 P.2d 992 (1948)
• Carothers v. Carothers, 260 Or. 99, 488 P.2d 1185 (1971)
• Miller Construction Co. v. Watts Construction Co., 223 Or. 504, 355 P.2d 215 (1960)

Re:Problem

[dudpixel]

Not sure why you were modded down. The steps are reasonably accurate as far as I recall.

Anyway, I was on facebook for a few months, before deciding that I couldn't trust them any longer. When I closed the account I specifically requested that my data be deleted and I'm pretty sure they replied with an email to confirm if this was what I wanted. After doing what the email said, I assumed my data was deleted.

My profile wasn't public, and was no longer accessible to any of my facebook friends (who, weird as it may seem, were actually my friends in real life too - clearly I was doing it wrong).

I'd really like to join again to be a part of the fun on facebook (keeping up with distant friends etc) but I'm too scared to now. Their policies are becoming too dangerous...

Re:Problem

[Anonymous Coward]

What about those who have a Facebook account but have not logged in with it since the ToS changes?

Re:Problem

[Xest]

I have an issue with Facebook, I'm signed up to it, but received an e-mail inviting me to join to a completely different, completely separate e-mail address from a business contact who I have no connection with other than having purchased something off him. That in itself is no big deal, but how the fuck did that e-mail contain "Other people on Facebook you might know" which contained a person who I have only ever spoken to via MSN messenger, using an MSN messenger account which has a different e-mail address, and the person in question isn't even in the same country.

How the fuck, did Facebook link two different e-mail addresses also leeching my or their MSN contact list.

So ignore the fact I have a Facebook account because it's completely separate in terms of contact from everything else I do, effectively Facebook is manage to farm data about me, from my MSN account or their MSN account on one e-mail address, and somehow managing to link it to a completely different e-mail address.

I suspect it's no long people who simply use Facebook that need to worry about their privacy, it seems Facebook is trawling the web in general as well as people's contact lists and so forth to make links and collect data about people who aren't even on Facebook.

Does anyone know how Facebook might have linked a contact list on one e-mail address that I didn't give it access to (although the other person may have) to a completely separate e-mail address that's never been attached to Facebook or MSN or anything like that but was given them by someone in a 3rd country and with no link to either of us? Is Facebook getting given access to data from yet other sites such as Amazon or similar where I have used that e-mail address?

Re:Problem

[Hurricane78]

Ok, I’m altering my side of the deal too.

Article 5937.13a, section 55z part 2, sentence 50395 now reads:
“THOSE WHO LEAD FACEBOOK, ARE FACEBOOK LEADERS, OR ARE CURRENTLY IN THE POSITION OF LEADING FACEBOOK, WHERE LEADING MEANS ANY OF “BEING THE BOSS/CEO/MANAGER/KING/MASTER/KHAN/CHIEF/DIRECTOR/WARLORD OR OTHER COMMONLY POSITION WITH POINTY HAIRSTYLE”, AND WAS, IS, OR WILL BE EXISTENT OR THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE IN ANY TIME FRAME, UNIVERSE OR REALITY, SHALL RECEIVE 1 (ONE [“YE ONETH” {LIM (X->0) ((SIN X) / X)}]) WEEKLY PENETRATION OF AT LEAST 40 CM BY A HEAVY INDUSTRIAL STEEL PUNCHING MACHINE OF 5 INCH DIAMETER, FOLLOWED BY A DONKEY PUNCH TO THE DIRTY SANCHEZED HEAD.”

No problem, right? ;)

Re:Problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Any corporation creating a contract with terms that are not valid under U.S. law shall be liable

You probably meant to say "corporation doing business in the US". Or are you one of those moronic US citizens who believe that the US = the world?

Ever heard of Europe? Japan? Australia? Huh?

Re:Problem

[JimFive]

I think you'll find that the terms of service for a free website is not a contract. There was no "meeting of the minds" and there was no "consideration".

The TOS is just a statement of the conditions under which facebook will let you use their stuff. If you violate the conditions, they don't let you use their stuff any longer. Any statement in the TOS or privacy policy is just a statement of corporate policy that can, and will, change.

It's entirely possible that the above is wrong and the TOS will be viewed by the courts as a contract, but I doubt it. I think a better attack against facebook would be that it defrauded its users into giving away valuable information under false pretenses.
--
JimFive

Re:Problem

[mdwh2]

So if /. changed their TOS to say that you personally owed them $1 million, that'd be fine, right? You used the service - pay up.

Re:Problem

[dgatwood]

I think a better attack against facebook would be that it defrauded its users into giving away valuable information under false pretenses.

Just to be pedantic, we're technically talking about the privacy policy and TOS combined, which since you agree to them at the same time, would be considered a single contract for legal purposes. It's important to understand that the privacy policy plays into this.

If there's no meeting of the minds on those two sets of terms and conditions, then Facebook automatically reverts back to having the minimum authority to disclose your private information to others, which means that pretty much everything they do is probably illegal. :-)

Regarding consideration, yes, there is. The consideration is that you get to use their service. That's a pretty significant consideration on their part in exchange for you providing A. information of value to them and B. ad revenue. Mutual consideration does not have to be money.

Regarding the meeting of the minds, that's certainly debatable with any contract of adhesion. The question becomes one of whether the terms are unconscionable. That might be hard to prove, so I think you'd probably best avoid that tactic.

Re:Problem

[JimFive]

then Facebook automatically reverts back to having the minimum authority to disclose your private information to others, which means that pretty much everything they do is probably illegal.

I think this may not be true. If you give me your unlisted telephone number I have no duty to not tell anyone else. Note: I do understand that there may be a difference between information that a person picks up in their day to day life and information that a company gathers in the course of doing business, so it may be that facebook's default position is more restrictive than a private person's.

The consideration is that you get to use their service. That's a pretty significant consideration on their part in exchange for you providing A. information of value to them and B. ad revenue.

Ad revenue is irrelevant as that is external to to the facebook/user relationship. As for (A), there is no agreement that you will provide information to facebook in return for the use of their service. In fact, one can use facebook without providing any information about yourself. The agreement as perceived by the user is: I can use facebook to meet and communicate with friends/acquaintances as long as I follow the rules laid out in the TOS. There is no sense that the user owes anything to facebook.
--
JimFive

Re:Problem

[dgatwood]

I do understand that there may be a difference between information that a person picks up in their day to day life and information that a company gathers in the course of doing business, so it may be that facebook's default position is more restrictive than a private person's.

Among other things the California Constitution defines privacy as an inalienable right, and the courts generally have ruled widespread invasion of privacy by corporations as illegal. You're right, though, that there's no specific set of laws that covers this, AFAIK, but rather interpretations thereof.

Ad revenue is irrelevant as that is external to to the facebook/user relationship.

Is it really? The fact that you will be advertised to is mentioned in the terms of service, so I don't think that's external to the relationship at all.

In fact, one can use facebook without providing any information about yourself.

Not entirely. I would argue that merely having an account means that other people you know can find you, and thus are more likely to remain users (which brings in ad revenue). Thus, even if you provide no more information than the bare minimum (name and email), you are still providing something of value to Facebook---your connections with other people.

Re:Problem

[JimFive]

Is it really? The fact that you will be advertised to is mentioned in the terms of service, so I don't think that's external to the relationship at all.

Do the terms prohibit ad-blocking? If facebook suddenly stopped advertising would that change the user's obligation? It seems to me that facebook's TOS is nothing more than a list of rules imposed on the users of a privately owned public space. If the mall rules say that you can't run, you can be kicked out for running, but there is no contract involved. The mall could require your name and phone number to enter, but that wouldn't mean you were joining a contract by providing it.
--
JimFive

Re:Problem

[dgatwood]

No, they don't prohibit ad blocking.

I would equate it more with a software license. You get to use their web software in exchange for complying with their rules. And software licenses are generally considered binding legally even without consideration in the opposite direction. Otherwise, the GPL would have no weight... which is actually rather curious, now that I think about it.

Re:Problem

[Uzuri]

The other guy gave them access, most likely by letting them import his address book.

Basically, if you know any warm bodies and give them your contact information, Facebook owns you.

Re:Problem

[Xest]

But that's the issue here, the data isn't linked.

The guy who I got the invite off had e-mail address 1, which was not my MSN address, he did not have my MSN address.

The person it listed from my MSN list was on an MSN list using e-mail 2, yet this person and account has never had e-mail 1.

So how can that be reconciled without external data mining from other sources that have other personal data that they cross referenced? There's no link between either of the two contacts, there's no place where both e-mails are stored together such that they can be linked directly, yet they were. The only way this is possible is using other data like my address which might be tied against both e-mails separately, or perhaps even more scary- the prospect that MS, who has a large share in Facebook mines my MSN conversations where I have mentioned the other address to other people in the past.

Facebook is shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject.

Allow us to "opt-in"

[Anonymous Coward]

I am tired of companies changing the rules but saying you can opt-out. How about we get to "opt-in" if we want Facebook to share our data with 3rd party websites??

I am willing to share certain information with just my Facebook friends, but I don't want it shared with every website on the Internet. Sheesh.

Re:Allow us to "opt-in"

[ircmaxell]

This. If they said it in the beginning, that's one thing. But telling us one thing, then later changing it and saying "well, all you need to do is tell us not to" is nothing more than a slimy practice. And I don't buy the "Well, we told you that we reserved the right to do it" argument. If they added controls to "opt-out" today, then they are acknowledging that there's more to it than what was written initially. What's the difference between that, and me going up to you on a busy street and saying "If you don't tell me no, your house is now mine" even if you didn't even hear it? Isn't that basically what they are doing here?

Re:Allow us to "opt-in"

[gyrogeerloose]

I am tired of companies changing the rules but saying you can opt-out. How about we get to "opt-in" if we want Facebook to share our data with 3rd party websites??

I am willing to share certain information with just my Facebook friends, but I don't want it shared with every website on the Internet. Sheesh.

Agreed. I closed down my Facebook account because of this. And, yes, I did actually have a few friends.

Re:Allow us to "opt-in"

[yuna49]

The USA Today article contains this observation from the senators:

"Facebook should change the rules so users have to proactively opt into the information sharing program, the senators said."

If they think opt-in is the best solution, how about revisiting the 2003 "CAN-SPAM" bill and changing it from opt-out to opt-in as well?

CAN we SPAM? Yes, we can!

Re:Allow us to "opt-in"

[ArcherB]

I am tired of companies changing the rules but saying you can opt-out. How about we get to "opt-in" if we want Facebook to share our data with 3rd party websites??

I am willing to share certain information with just my Facebook friends, but I don't want it shared with every website on the Internet. Sheesh.

Agreed. I closed down my Facebook account because of this. And, yes, I did actually have a few friends.

Why not just limit the stuff in your profile to stuff that you don't care about being public? Hell, you could even use a fake name, fake information and even a fake "throwaway" email address. Then they would be sharing fake data. I don't have a problem with that.

Re:Allow us to "opt-in"

[Evil.Bonsai]

You 'opted-in' by signing up in the first place. I'm waiting for FB to say "Don't like how we do business? Here, let us help you close your account."

Re:Allow us to "opt-in"

[SydShamino]

Only one of the four senators mentioned in the summary or the article voted for CAN-SPAM. And that one senator now has a daughter in law school who provides him with information about technology law that he likely didn't have in 2003.

Re:Allow us to "opt-in"

[hemlock00]

I think the key difference in your house example is that you're not agreeing to give up the home, whereas on facebook, and other sites with EULAs is that you have to agree (even if you don't read it) to use their service. Now I don't think there is anything wrong with having a set of rules for a service you create. But the problem is that companies know the majority of people don't read them and use it to take advantage. If you don't have the time to read _each_ TOS agreement you sign up with, then don't sign up for it. If you're smart and read them, you won't be taken advantage of. IMO, the companies may be shady in using the EULAs/TOS agreements knowing people don't read them, but people hold blame too.

Re:Allow us to "opt-in"

[Culture20]

This. If they said it in the beginning, that's one thing. But telling us one thing, then later changing it and saying "well, all you need to do is tell us not to" is nothing more than a slimy practice. And I don't buy the "Well, we told you that we reserved the right to do it" argument. If they added controls to "opt-out" today, then they are acknowledging that there's more to it than what was written initially. What's the difference between that, and me going up to you on a busy street and saying "If you don't tell me no, your house is now mine" even if you didn't even hear it? Isn't that basically what they are doing here?

They're not even providing tools to opt-out. It's closer to you coming up to me on a busy street, duct-taping my mouth and saying "If you don't tell me no, your house is now mine".

The website sharing thing was coupled with an expansion of "public data" a couple days later. Essentially, FB said: Hey, we're going to start sharing your info with websites, but you can opt-out; just declick this several-layers-deep checkbox, and then confirm the ambiguous warning, and ignore the text that says "Your friends will still share your PUBLIC data, like profile picture (became forced public a few months ago), friends list (likewise), and anything else you have public." Then, two days later, they pulled a fast one and said: "Wow! Amazing new 'Like' feature. Now your work history, education history, home city, and a lot of personal information about books, films, etc that you prefer are all 'Like links' you can edit them individually if you want." When you edit them, you get text that essentially says "Anything about you is now a Like Link, and all Like Links are Public. If you don't want Like Links, your profile space will be empty."

Ta DA! Now even if you de-select the "website share" crap, Facebook still shares, via your friends accounts, all of your public data which is almost everything in your profile except for address and other contact info (not far away from being forced public), non-profile photos, wall posts, and messages. Essentially, FB has figured out an end-run around giving people's "private" data to third parties by reclassifying it as "public" after the fact.

Re:Allow us to "opt-in"

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not physically possible to agree to something without comprehending it. Understanding is a prerequisite to consenting.

The law recognises this already in another controversial area: fucking children. You can't fuck them because they can't consent to it. It would be rape.

Such agreements should be illegal for the same reason. Nobody honestly understands the bullshit in those documents. Nobody has time to read them. And they aren't expected to read them. It's all a deception and a pretense to take advantage of people.

Re:Allow us to "opt-in"

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it stops people you know IRL from being able to identify you on facebook, which more or less completely defeats the point of having an account in the first place.

As Jon Stewart says...

[rsborg]

linky:

"I have not moved out of the comedian's box into the news box. The news box is moving towards me.

Perhaps Senator Franken thinks the same thing?

Re:As Jon Stewart says...

[strikeleader]

"Senator" Franken

I still find that title very suspect. He should have an asterisk next to his name.

Re:As Jon Stewart says...

[osu-neko]

"Senator" Franken

I still find that title very suspect. He should have an asterisk next to his name.

Hey, at least it isn't Senator Lizard People. :p

Re:As Jon Stewart says...

[Locke2005]

The asterisk would be much more appropriate next to the name of our 43rd president.

Re:As Jon Stewart says...

[moosesocks]

Have you actually followed Al Franen's senate career? He's one of the more eloquent and civil senators serving today. He seems to take his senate career more seriously than some lifelong politicians do.

If anything, his career as a comedy writer has helped him get a pulse on the feelings of the electorate. A comedian needs to be perceptive of his audience, just like a politician should. In fact, the two jobs share a number of traits.

Please enlighten me

[Anonymous Coward]

The Schumer facebook link works without the ref=search&sid=636309782.1077664488..1 part. What's that ID for?

Free economy, regulate fraud

[Darkness404]

The problem I see is that this will lead to more regulation, which leads to less innovation, more draconian laws (see DMCA) and losses of freedom. What congress needs to do is to force -everyone- not just Facebook, MySpace, etc. is that they can't just change terms and conditions whenever they see fit without making us agree to them again.

This is -fraud- and must be eliminated. Think of it this way, you go to Wal-Mart, buy a new blender thinking it had the feature to, say, crush ice. So for the first week it does it just fine then the next week it won't crush ice because that feature had been removed. You should have a right to demand a refund. (And that example wasn't too far out there, look at Sony and the PS3...) and you should have the -right- to be notified when things change. If you aren't informed of the change, you didn't agree to it therefore the contract should be voided.

Any license that states that they can change the conditions must be made illegal. A contract or license is an -agreement- and agreements mean that 2 parties need to know what they are agreeing to. If they don't, its not an agreement.

Re:Free economy, regulate fraud

[L0rdJedi]

Or

If you don't like the license agreement and the fact that it can be changed at any time, STOP USING FACEBOOK or any other site with a similar agreement. The problem isn't the agreement. The problem is that people don't care. Nobody has to use Facebook or any other social networking site. If you don't like their TOS, don't use their service. It's that simple.

Re:Free economy, regulate fraud

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem I see is that this will lead to more regulation

Fair enough

What congress needs to do is to force -everyone- not just Facebook, MySpace, etc. is that they can't just change terms and conditions whenever they see fit without making us agree to them again.

Ah. New regulations to the rescue. I can see you've put a lot of thought into this.

Re:Free economy, regulate fraud

[Darkness404]

Its still fraud though and fraud is fraud. The entire point of having a government is not to 'bail out' large businesses, send millions of dollars in aid to Africa, or pay for a life-sized painting of George Bush, it is to prevent fraud and force. If the government sees fraud happening, its their job to stop it. I think we can all agree that changing user agreements that much without warning is fraud. If its not fraud, then why is bait and switch prohibited? Surely the customer should be knowledgeable enough not to go for the switch, but many do.

The entire point of governments is to prevent fraud and force. Those are really the only two that make perfect sense. Yet why do we think that we need all these programs that the government has proven to be incompetent at, while neglecting the two reasons we don't have the freedom of anarchy.

Re:Free economy, regulate fraud

[cynyr]

Last i knew you could NOT make facebook purge your data from their systems after you quit. So thats the big problem here for me, if i get new terms when i log in, and i disagree, i should get a button that lets me gather a copy of my data and then make you delete it.

Re:Free economy, regulate fraud

[Anonymous Coward]

Just how much do you pay to use facebook again?

Re:Free economy, regulate fraud

[Darkness404]

Ah. New regulations to the rescue. I can see you've put a lot of thought into this.

How is it a new regulation? The definition of a contract is:

a. An agreement between two or more parties, especially one that is written and enforceable by law. See Synonyms at bargain. b. The writing or document containing such an agreement.

From http://www.thefreedictionary.com/contract . How can you agree to something if you don't know what it is? It stops being an agreement. If I agree to pay you $50, we both have an agreement I will give you $50. If I change that to paying you $25 and show up with $25 when you expect $50, chances are you won't be too happy because the agreement is broken. Its not a new regulation, it simply keeps the definition of contract and agreement together.

Re:Free economy, regulate fraud

[girlintraining]

more regulation, which leads to less innovation, more draconian laws (see DMCA) and losses of freedom.

Yeah, I'm gonna miss the freedom to expose my personal information to thousands of for-profit businesses who will try to sell me crap I don't want or need. That loss of innovation will mean smaller budgets for desperate and single marketing people, who will be sadly forced into slavery and their children sent to public schools. And you're absolutely right about the draconian laws -- I mean, look at HIPAA and how it's horribly screwed over the medical field with it's demands for privacy of information. And then there's the inherent loss of freedom that comes from demanding that a corporation not sell it's customer information to the highest bidder -- oh, wait. That's not a freedom you have -- that's one they have and like to club you over the head with!

Think of it this way, you go to Wal-Mart, buy a new blender thinking it had the feature to, say, crush ice. So for the first week it does it just fine then the next week it won't crush ice because that feature had been removed.

I could counter with, "you should have read the EULA" and give a long dissertation on the wonders of open source in embedded systems, but instead I'll just say "dude... weak."

...and you should have the -right- to be notified when things change.

Yeah! Because Sony didn't put it on their homepage, at the top in CAPITAL BOLD LETTERING of the terms of use, and required the user read the terms before installing the firmware update, where in no uncertain terms it laid out that the feature would be removed, what was being added, and what the consequences of not upgrading were. Yup... none of that happened. If you want to use an example that's relevant, try Microsoft's WGA module being force-updated and then nuking from orbit both legit and illegit installs of its own software.

Any license that states that they can change the conditions must be made illegal.

Licenses are living documents. They need to be changed in order to adapt to the environment. Perhaps it would be better to say people should be free to continue using the product under the old license without losing any features, benefits, or similar by choosing to do so. That is more legally defensible and sound.

Re:Free economy, regulate fraud

[hedleyroos]

Facebook presumably made money from his profile under the old terms and conditions. So Facebook is not really free since you the user give them something (data) in return for a social networking platform.

There is no binding contract here, just an agreement. Depending on which country you live in you can pursue that to different extents. But let's say the agreement is enforcable then I'd say FB broke the law.

Re:Free economy, regulate fraud

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry bud, but here in the USA, we (rightly) have identified that sort of bullshit as unacceptable.

If you don't like their TOS, don't use their service. It's that simple.

It is NOT that simple. I cannot run a photocopying business with a TOS that states that I am entitled to sell your personal information to identity theft rings.
You might argue "if you don't like it, don't use them and they'll go out of business." Unfortunately, some people might not notice that part of the agreement, or perhaps they were in a hurry and didn't realize it included that clause.
This is why we make LAWS. People, on the whole, agree that certain types of bullshit are unacceptable and we aren't going to allow it.

It's PARTICULARLY upsetting when they seem to think they can obtain your data under the terms of one agreement, and then CONTINUE to keep said data (and profit from it) after they change the agreement without notifying you or obtaining your permission.

Exactly how long do you think it would take a bank to get the shit slapped out of them by the government for following this sort of course of action?

They take your money under an agreement, and they are REQUIRED by federal regulation to notify you of any changes to your agreement. If they fail to do so, they are subject to some serious legal shit-fan-hitting.

Facebook, along with EVERY OTHER COMPANY in the US, online or otherwise, should be required to notify the other person in the event of a PROPOSED change in agreement.
If the person doesn't like the agreement, they should be allowed to collect their data (similar to collecting your money from the bank) and then any and all traces of that data should be required to be destroyed.

Why? Because to many people, their personal data is worth more than the money they have in the bank.

Legislation isn't the answer to many problems, but it IS the answer to stopping a lot of the corporate bullshit that goes on in this country.
If anything, we need more laws/regulations to govern corporations, and less to govern individuals.

An unrestrained, unregulated free market fails just as readily as one that's under complete governmental control.

Re:Free economy, regulate fraud

[Anonymous Coward]

If I agree to pay you $50, we both have an agreement I will give you $50. If I change that to paying you $25 and show up with $25 when you expect $50, chances are you won't be too happy because the agreement is broken.

Facebook users initially agreed that the terms of the agreement can be changed. If I agree that you should pay me $50, subject to the condition that you can change the amount you pay at any time, I'd have nobody to blame but myself for entering into a very stupid agreement. You want the government to make that kind of agreement illegal? Fine. But I fail to see how that (i.e. restricting what kind of agreements consenting parties can enter into) wouldn't qualify as new regulation.

As an aside, note that lay definitions (like the one you linked) and legal definitions (as set into actual law) often differ substantially.

Re:Free economy, regulate fraud

[thetartanavenger]

It's not just social networking sites though. Virtually ANY site you use has one of these clauses, collects personal information about you that you expect to remain private. It's getting to the stage where if you want to use the internet (a large portion of it), you have to agree that the website can do whatever the hell they want with your data, even though they said they wouldn't.

Take slashdot for instance:

From http://geek.net/index.php/terms-of-use/

Geeknet reserves the right, at Geeknet's sole discretion, to change, modify, add or remove portions of these Terms periodically. Such modifications shall be effective immediately upon posting of the modified agreement to the website unless provided otherwise (e.g., when implementing major, substantive changes, Geeknet intends to provide users with up to fourteen days of advance notice). Your continued use of the Geeknet Sites following the posting of changes to these Terms will mean that you accept those changes.

From http://geek.net/privacy-statement

Geeknet reserves the right to update and change this Privacy Statement from time to time. If Geeknet makes material changes to its privacy practices, a prominent notice will be posted on this web page. Each time a user uses the Sites, the current version of the Privacy Statement applies. Accordingly, a user should check the date of this Privacy Statement (which appears at the top) and review for any changes since the last version. If a user does not agree to the Privacy Statement, the user should not use the Sites.

Re:Free economy, regulate fraud

[Angst Badger]

The problem I see is that this will lead to more regulation, which leads to less innovation, more draconian laws (see DMCA) and losses of freedom. What congress needs to do is to force -everyone- not just Facebook, MySpace, etc. is that they can't just change terms and conditions whenever they see fit without making us agree to them again.

This is a word game. You're decrying regulation while arguing for regulation, which leads me to believe that you're using "regulation" to mean laws you don't agree with. Prohibiting fraud is regulating trade. It's exactly the kind of thing that we have regulations to accomplish. Regulations can lead to "less innovation", etc., but they can also lead to less fraud, higher quality, better worker safety, and greater accountability. Knee-jerk rejection of laws because some laws are bad is an embrace of anarchy, for which see Somalia.

Congress wants to regulate fraud, false advertising, and other forms of dishonesty and exploitation? Well, good. Will they also pass laws that aren't as good? Absolutely. But we live in a democracy, and we can continue to adjust and improve the laws, just as we've been doing for the last couple of centuries. I think we all pretty much agree that free enterprise is a good thing, within reasonable limits, which we can also all pretty much agree would exclude fraud. To do that, we need regulations.

Re:Free economy, regulate fraud

[Anonymous Coward]

JEBUS FUGGIN CHRIST!!!!! You are one of the few that actually get it. People, if you don't like it, then don't use it. I never have, and never will have a facebook account. Whether or not its legal or illegal for them to change their TOS on users without notification, just don't fucking use it if you don't like the idea of having your info shared. Isn't that the whole idea behind facebook anyway, sharing your info with friends, family....strangers?!?!?!

Re:Free economy, regulate fraud

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should they inconvenience their self to create a purge data option when their original TOS stated that they can collect and keep any data you enter by agreeing to said TOS. And why would you put any data about yourself online ON A SOCIAL NETWORKING WEBSITE that you would care about not having others read or store thousands of miles away and accessible from anywhere in the world. I'm facebook, i want your data to sell. I dont care what kind of button you want, you can't have it, this is my website and yuo agreed to post this data on my website.

You, sir, are a walking contradiction to yourself by signing up on facebook in the first place.

Re:Free economy, regulate fraud

[VocationalZero]

If you don't like the license agreement and the fact that it can be changed at any time, STOP USING PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING THAT REQUIRES A LICENSING AGREEMENT

FTFY

Re:Free economy, regulate fraud

[Anonymous Coward]

Or

It's that simple.

It's that simple only when you have the simplistic world view that your post shows. The real world doesn't quite work like that. If it did, nobody would be obese in America. Nobody would've died of cancer because of smoking. Etc. etc.

Re:Free economy, regulate fraud

[W3bbo]

It's erroneous to believe that regulated business directly leads to stagnation. I give you a counter-example: health and safety regulations and regulations that established minimum salaries lead to the removal of manual workers from production lines to be replaced with by robots. That's an innovation caused by regulation.

Also, "freedoms" that can easily be taken advantage of by corporate entities rarely works out in your personal interests. What the Senators are discussing limits Facebook's "freedom" to abuse your information. I feel you're only opposed to this in order to be consistently libertarian. You need a new philosophy.

Re:Free economy, regulate fraud

[Anonymous Coward]

Last i knew you could NOT make facebook purge your data from their systems after you quit.

You can't make them purge the data once you've quite but it's trivial to create a script that will remove all the content from your profile before you cancel your account. FB probably still has a copy of the data from some point(s) in the past but I doubt they have the resources to dig through all the datasets to find what time I was eating ramen at. My profile is no longer viewable and my username was removed from any photos i was tagged in.

Re:Free economy, regulate fraud

[zuperduperman]

It's not fraud. They explicitly tell you in their terms of use that they may change their terms of use any time they like. They are totally 100% up front about it. It couldn't be less fraudulent.

Furthermore, these kind of clauses are included in TOS as a kind of necessity to limit liability. Companies need the ability to change or place limits on how their services are used if and when they find people abusing them in unexpected ways. If we could not have such agreements it would be nearly impossible to start small online companies of any kind.

This kind of clause trades on a pact of trust between the user and the service provider. The user "trusts" the service provider not to do anything "evil" with the power that they give them. The problem here is that, just like Wall st and the banks, it turns out that the "free market" that lets people ditch the service when it *does* abuse the trust doesn't seem to be working. People do not leave Facebook when it turns hostile on them - they have no choice, because all their data, friends and social life are bound up in it.

If there is to be regulation, I would like it to be around data portability. If a service collects data provided by a user then it *must* provide an open and transparent way to export that data in a machine readable format. This would allow alternative Facebooks to spring up and then we'd truly see a competition between who has the best service that is most in the consumer's interest.

Re:Free economy, regulate fraud

[LuxMaker]

You may not be able to purge the data from their systems but you can alter it in such a way to make it unrecognizable. Start by going to Account in the upper right hand corner then go to account settings. Change all that data in there and use an email you create just for this purpose and link to it. Problem solved.

Re:Free economy, regulate fraud

[Maestro485]

Except it's not that simple. When Ma Bell was around and people didn't like the monopoly, should they have quit using telephones? Boycotting a service like the telephone (at the time) was simply too socially, and probably economically, damaging.

We have a similar, albeit less serious, issue here. When everyone you know, including family, uses Facebook to communicate and stay in touch, how can you just stop using it? Especially since your own action is utterly inconsequential to Facebook management, while being absolutely consequential to your own personal life.

Internet technology is fast approaching common infrastructure. This would be like 150 years ago, people saying "If you don't like the water company, just dig your own well!"

Of course, these examples are considered "extreme" because sites like Facebook are so new. But this line of reasoning only serves to magnify the real issue: the Internet has had such a profound effect on society that a newbie to traditional industry like Facebook can become so crucial to everyday life in just a few years. (Granted, the word "crucial" is somewhat strong, but we're talking about social interaction, not life or death.)

I can understand the position Facebook has taken. As a private company, they have the right to do as they please to a certain extent. But when a company like Facebook can achieve the same kind of social utility in a matter of years as a phone or electric company that took decades, the law simply cannot keep up.

Re:Free economy, regulate fraud

[Anonymous Coward]

A contract or license is an -agreement- and agreements mean that 2 parties need to know what they are agreeing to. If they don't, its not an agreement.

Enforcing this would also invalidate variable rate loan contracts.

Re:Free economy, regulate fraud

[MidnightBrewer]

Facebook did let people know time and time again, and people just kept using it. I think the government is right to step in here; I don't consider somebody sharing all my information with strangers and marketing firms a "feature", nor am I unhappy to have it taken away. The other option would be a class-action lawsuit, which could take forever, and requires a lawyer who believes he can make money off of it before he's going to do anything to help.

The government is acting according to the voice of the people. That's their job.

Re:Free economy, regulate fraud

[Anonymous Coward]

The law can keep up.

It just won't.

You forgot who's making those laws.

Politicians.

Re:Free economy, regulate fraud

[Anonymous Coward]

'Stop using Facebook' is all well and good in theory. But in the real world, there's these things called virtual farms.

People have too much of their worthless lives invested to just walk away.

Re:Free economy, regulate fraud

[drinkypoo]

Except it's not that simple. When Ma Bell was around and people didn't like the monopoly, should they have quit using telephones? Boycotting a service like the telephone (at the time) was simply too socially, and probably economically, damaging.

Ma Bell had a government-granted monopoly. Facebook does not. Anyone may start a competitor right now and if they can offer some compelling reason to do so, people will use it. And they don't need to lease any right-of-way to deliver their services... it will be delivered by Ma Bell! At least, in most of the US, and in Canada.

Re:Free economy, regulate fraud

[Maestro485]

You are correct.

The point I was trying to make was that if I disagree with Facebook's terms (which I do), that I really have no ability to challenge Facebook itself without significant social loss to me.

Thanks to Facebook, I have been able to stay in contact with many members of my family (aunts, cousins, uncles), whom I otherwise would only speak to a handful of times a year.

Granted, I have the right to create my own rival social networking site and convince everyone I know to switch to it, but that is basically an insane proposition given that Google's "Buzz" can't pull it off.

I am not blaming Facebook for it's decisions, but I am asserting that Facebook, at least temporarily, has a de facto monopoly on social networking, ergo I essentially have no recourse against their privacy policies.

Don't senators have a better way...

[Anonymous Coward]

...to do this...like, I don't know, pass a law or something?

Re:Don't senators have a better way...

[twoallbeefpatties]

It's kinda hard to get laws passed these days, when the filibuster effects going on and all. If you can change something just by THREATENING to pass a law, that might be all for the better.

Shocking idea...

[Anonymous Coward]

Cancel your account. If these clowns can change their TOS on a whim, don't trust them with your information.

Re:Shocking idea...

[d3l33t]

Exactly, Don't like how Facebook uses your information? Don't use it.

WTF?!

[Capt.DrumkenBum]

Isn't the whole point of Facebook to share user information.
I mean personally I find it pretty pointless, but some people seem to like being able to share their bowel movements. (and other less useful information.)

Re:WTF?!

[L0rdJedi]

Isn't the whole point of Facebook to share user information.

Yes. Which is why all the hub bub about them sharing your information is completely lame. If you don't want to share your information, don't share it.

Re:WTF?!

[Anonymous Coward]

It is the point of Facebook to share user information, but it is also the point that you get to control with WHOM you share that information. I personally have my account locked down to just my friends.

For example, I don't mind sharing photos of my kids with my friends, but I don't want every pedophile on the Internet to have access to those pictures. I may post that I am enjoying San Juan, but I don't want criminals to have access to that information. Do you see the difference? It's about having control over who sees what.

Facebook, on the other hand, keeps making moves to automatically share more of your personal information with people without your consent (i.e. you have to opt-out AFTER the fact instead of being able to opt-in). This is disgusting and is NOT simply a facet of a social networking site. If Facebook had simply shared all information with everyone from the start, I seriously doubt many of us would have used it in the first place. But they now decide they can do that after the fact at their discretion.

Re:WTF?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't the whole point of Facebook to share user information.
I mean personally I find it pretty pointless, but some people seem to like being able to share their bowel movements. (and other less useful information.)

That's what Poop the World is for.

Re:WTF?!

[Anonymous Coward]

One of Facebook's defining characteristics when it was first created is that you had tight control over who saw your information. Supposedly it was restricted to your friends or people in your network. This is very different than what it is becoming, which shares information with everyone and anyone.

Re:WTF?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes and no. Some people use it only to keep in touch with family overseas, for example. They want their mom and brother to know what they're doing, but now Steve the random pedophile, or Bing.

Re:WTF?!

[LandDolphin]

This is very different than what it is becoming

Becoming? Don't you mean became?

Re:WTF?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, you only allowed your friends to see your personal photos on FB. Let me ask you this: what's stopping your friends from not doing a "copy & paste" your photos and share them with another sites on the Net and identify you who you are. What was personal and private is no longer personal and private anymore right? If you say you trust your friends to not to share those photos, hmm.. better think again.

Re:WTF?!

[h3]

> Isn't the whole point of Facebook to share user information.

I think this gets at a key point in the discussion at hand: there is a fuzzy area where "communication" and "sharing" overlap. I personally think of Facebook as a tool to communicate with people I've chosen to communicate with. As such, sharing my personal information to other 3rd party business appalls me[1].

I think others may think of Facebook as a tool for sharing information, and perhaps they aren't so bothered.

-----
[1] I don't actually have a Facebook account - I closed it out after the 3rd or 4th (15th? 87th?) change to their privacy terms, which broke *that* camel's back.

Re:WTF?!

[Capt.DrumkenBum]

I do have a Facebook account. I don't use it much, although I did reconnect with a few old friends.
I am very cautious about what I put up on my profile. (Very little.)
I hate any organization changing their T&C, I put up with it because I don't care at all what they might choose to do with pictures of my 21 year old Jeep, or my 29 year old motorcycle. As much as I wish it wasn't so, Facebook is where the people are.

Re:WTF?!

[spartan212]

The point of Facebook is for users to share information with other users that they designate, not for Facebook to give away any and all users' information for their own benefit. And the way that they justify doing it is just plain sneaky.

Re:WTF?!

[Hurricane78]

Welcome to the real world. Now with shades of gray between the “share nothing and to nobody“ and “shave everything to everybody” absolutes! Enjoy your day!

P.S.: Learn what the following words mean: “trust”, “privacy”, “trustworthiness”, “individuality”, etc. Because the amount shared is a function of the trust you have in someone.

Re:WTF?!

[JimFive]

Let me ask you this: what's stopping your friends from not doing a "copy & paste" your photos and share them with another sites on the Net

Copyright Law?

Facebook - A Matter of National Importance

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, so... we have:

A war in Afghanistan supporting a leader who himself threatened to work with the very people trying to kill American soldiers.

A war in Iraq that we never should have been a part of in the first place and which has sucked away untold American lives, billions of American dollars and Iraqi lives.

An economy kept afloat by little in the way of solid fundamentals as corporations make strong productivity gains but millions of Americans are left jobless.

Health care costs that are astronomical and largely unchanged despite a "healthcare reform" bill being passed and doomsday debt levels threatening to suck up every budget from here out unless taxes are raised and entitlements slashed.

Mexican illegals marching boldly through Arizona in pursuit of a financial stability in the U.S. that their government can't provide and a controversial Arizona bill that allows for questioning those suspected of being illegals (which the Mexican government apparently can find time to condemn since it's not doing its job in the first place).

And despite all of this... the subject that garners the attention of United States Senators is Facebook's information sharing policy? Is this a South Park episode or real life?!!? Not to discount the importance of privacy matters but given the problems current faced by our republic, is FACEBOOK really the #1 or #100 most important thing that U.S. Senators can spend their time rallying around? They should be ASHAMED to even voice an opinion publicly about this given the state of the economy, the federal debt and the major crises facing the country.

Re:Facebook - A Matter of National Importance

[jameskojiro]

If immigration services had done their jobs in the summer of 2001 there woulnd't have been a 9/11 attack. Most of the 9/11 Hijackers were here on EXPIRED student visas. If the FBI had done their job they could have prevented it as well.

So what do we do?

We create several more layers of obsfication for the problem. We pass a patriot act that screw over the average american on civil rights, we create another bloated beuracracy in the form of Homeland Security.

What should have happened is that after the congressional investigation into 9/11 there should have been several rounds of mass firings in several key government agencies followed by promotions of those who sounded the alarms but were met with deaf ears of their (now fired) co-workers.

No one had the GUTS to even suggest that they should fire anyone after the 9/11 hearings. More of the government mentality of promoting those who fail instead of firing their asses.

Re:Facebook - A Matter of National Importance

[beakerMeep]

Apparently the off topic mod doesnt have a facebook account

I don't believe you read his books

[BitterAndDrunk]

I know you say you did, but you're either willfully misrepresenting them, a thundering moron, or a liar.

The whole "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot" thing was tarring him with the same brush Rush uses every day.

Additionally, there's scads of refutations in Truth, Lying Liars, and Big Fat Idiot for multiple talking points, and outlines his own POV in an often humorous way.

Again, with lots of footnotes and cites pointing to where he derived his facts from.

But yeah, you go ahead pretending he calls people names for three books and can't have any political discourse.

Just a hint, re: discourse: I suspect the problem is you.

Smoke and mirrors

[AthleteMusicianNerd]

This contradicts the policies of forcing email services like google, yahoo and telecom companies to share info. It's a full time job to keep track of what bills are coming out of that town, and many of them are slight of hand. I'm sure this one is no different.

"without making us agree to them again. "

[aepervius]

Click here to agree to the new condition. If you disagree we will still keep your data and sell what you agreed previously to let us sell, but you lose the service. If you agree we will rape your privacy three ways.

The only way to win the game is not to play to begin with. Wargame got it right, only it applies to nearly all service and goods on the net.

What the Senators should have done

[jameskojiro]

They should have told American that they are dumbasses if they share all of their most personal thoughts online and if they don't want to the whole world to know what colour of poopie they made this morning the idiot users need to lock their profile the hell down.

Instead it makes for so much better press for the scum bag senators and congresscritters to go after the "big mean faceless coporate entity" known as facebook rather than calling out their constituients on their inherent stupidity.

Instead they will propose some draconian legislation which will inadvertantly affect our freedom in a negative way, but we will be so much better for it as the unwashed masses of idiots out there will be protected by big daddy government. Plus they will waste more money in creating some agency to enforce it so everyone will suffer from higher taxes to boot.

I blame the piss poor edication in this country, I mean how hard is it to realize that posting your diary pages on facebook is the same as going to the village square and tearing out sheet of your diary and spaling them to community corkboard? Common Sense is so freekin' dead it is a wonder we don't have people drowning to death because they forgot to roll up their windows when they went through a car wash.

Re:What the Senators should have done

[Culture20]

They should have told American that they are dumbasses if they share all of their most personal thoughts online and if they don't want to the whole world to know what colour of poopie they made this morning the idiot users need to lock their profile the hell down.

Karma be damned. You're stupid, or hopefully just ignorant of what Facebook has been doing this last few years.
When I signed up for FB three and a half years ago, it was fairly easy to lock your profile down, setting all of the information about yourself to be "friends only". They even tightened it further and created a friend-groups mechanism and allowed you to assign special rights to specific wall posts (or types of posts) to just certain groups of friends (work, old friends, current, etc).

Then, the VC ran out, and monetization needed to happen. Beacon appeared. Profile Picture, networks, and friend lists became public, with no options to lock down. Most recently, all of the book, film, pasttime favorites, work history, education history, current city, and hometown were all forced public. What's strange is there are options to restrict them to "just friends", but the new ToS say they're public info, and people have tested them and found they are public despite the privacy controls. Essentially, information you once entered into FB under the previous promise of (and current implied) privacy is being retroactively classified as public data and being made available to partner websites and any joe user. Imagine a worst case scenario: 22 yo woman signs up for FB two years ago, has her profile totally locked down so that only her friends can see anything. So, she feels safe putting a pretty picture of herself as her profile pic, listing her current city, and doesn't mind "liking" the local bars and restaurants she frequents (extremely common), where she works, and listing her favorite books, movies, etc. Unless she's been a _lot_ more prudent then average joe about re-checking her profile with a different non-friended profile, all that info is now public. I did say worst case, right? Maybe she's got a stalker ex from another city and he now knows where she lives and works. She thought FB was keeping that info from him; not any more.

This isn't going to stop unless someone smacks Facebook, and the Senators are holding up their hands and counting slowly and clearly.

Re:What the Senators should have done

[Anonymous Coward]

You or your firends obviously not heard of the concept of Buyer Beware, or that anything that is free is too good to be true.

Smart people don't use facebook, dumb blabbermouths do.

This wasn't without notice

[Anonymous Coward]

The first time I went to my own Facebook home page after this policy change, I had a big notification box right at the top telling me about it, and including a link to my own privacy settings to make changes if I wanted to. I had to dismiss that box or it would keep reappearing.

IIRC

[sugapablo]

Everyone who signs up for Facebook agrees to their Terms which are clearly spelled out and say they could pull stuff like this. If you don't like the terms, don't sign up. This isn't a situation like a local utility where you don't have a choice to switch to something else.

Re:IIRC

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone who signs up for Facebook agrees to their Terms which are clearly spelled out and say they could pull stuff like this. If you don't like the terms, don't sign up. This isn't a situation like a local utility where you don't have a choice to switch to something else.

That's so true. It's more or less the same when we're talking about almost any SNS when looking their term agreements. Its information-sharing policies are not much different from MySpace or Xanga or whatever. Government officials don't seem to know as much as we do? That's kinda sad but then again it's not a surprise to me.

They need new jobs - as lawnboys

[Anonymous Coward]

Shouldn't senators be smarter than this? They constantly display the intelligence of someone who should be mowing my yard.

BTW, I need to apologize to all the lawn care professionals out there. You are much smarter than these idiots. I know people running lawn care businesses who enjoy doing it and left 6-figure salary jobs in corporations. The claim to be much saner and more connected with their communities. Basically, they are much happier.

I'd like much more happiness - and them out of out business - for most of the elected people.

Proves my point

[fortapocalypse]

Government should be there to give us freedom, not to be our mother.

User Acknowledged

[stewbacca]

When Facebook added this "feature", the next time I logged in I was prompted with a big-ole dialog window informing me of all the changes, the implications of privacy, and how to change it if I didn't like the new settings.

That's all I really ask for and I don't find it unreasonable that Facebook is trying to get in as many areas as possible (through sharing everyone's stuff).

It's really easy to cancel a Facebook account too.

Re:User Acknowledged

[Culture20]

That's all I really ask for and I don't find it unreasonable that Facebook is trying to get in as many areas as possible (through sharing everyone's stuff).

You don't find it unreasonable that Facebook says "Hey, come write on this piece of paper, we'll keep it right here in this safe deposit box where only the people you specify (and Facebook for purposes of directing marketing to you) have access" and then takes the safe deposit box and dumps it on the sidewalk while yelling "Free stuff! Come read this free stuff! Anyone can read it, despite what our contract with the user said earlier!"?

Re:User Acknowledged

[magus_melchior]

Let's not forget that while Facebook conveniently (for them, anyway) selected the options that would maximize their revenues, the user can just as conveniently (albeit less so, as one needs to manipulate a web form) select the options that maximize privacy and information protection-- or what little one can expect online, at least.

Sure, it would be nice if online information brokers (*cough*Google*cough*) would set up these products with the security of users' data first and foremost in mind, but unfortunately there's this thing called "profit motive" that discourages such a policy, particularly since Google discovered that such data mining is extremely lucrative. We should expect the Web to be as private as a billboard on the I-5 with a powerful radio transmitter; if you want online privacy, keep as much information as you can off it. You'll sacrifice conveniences like online applications and banking, but at least you will know that the usual online suspects aren't the ones who accidentally leaked your personal information to spammers and identity thieves.

Re:User Acknowledged

[stewbacca]

No, it's not unreasonable, because they told me last week they were going to dump all my info on the sidewalk, but they also told me how to NOT let them dump all my info on the sidewalk. I simply read the notice, then made the security setting changes that suit me. I suggest everyone else worried about it should do the same.

Re:User Acknowledged

[Anubis IV]

Not quite correct, actually. You're thinking of two or three times ago that they changed the TOS. The latest change, which was within the last week, did not come with a dialog window informing you of the changes and how to go about fixing things. All it did, in fact, was move some of your potentially private information into the publicly accessible areas of the site, without any warning, opt-in, opt-out, or any other option offered.

Re:User Acknowledged

[stewbacca]

Nope. I got a dialog a few days ago, telling me what they were doing and how to circumvent it.

Re:User Acknowledged

[whisper_jeff]

It's really easy to cancel a Facebook account too.

Yeah. With the exception that they don't delete any of your information, it's dead easy.

To actually _delete_ your account, you have to manually go through and delete _EVERYTHING_ which is, to say the least, time consuming. And there's no guarantee that your information is actually deleted - Facebook probably still has it and still sells it...

Re:User Acknowledged

[stewbacca]

Well, I expected as much when I signed up. I'm not an idealist, so I was pretty sure Facebook is doing something with my info to make enough money to stay in business.

Re:User Acknowledged

[dudpixel]

You do realize that the whole time from when the change was implemented until you went and "opted out", your safe deposit box was right there on the sidewalk.

Once your data is outside of facebook, it is public. The terms only say what facebook can do with it, not what their third parties can do.

Re:User Acknowledged

[FreakyGreenLeaky]

aaaaww look, we have a facebook fanb0i! That wooshing sound you swatted at was not a fly, it was the whole point about right of privacy.

Re:User Acknowledged

[stewbacca]

Actually I didn't opt out. Notice I said I selected the settings that suited me.

That bullshit is a mile deep

[copponex]

And how do you propose people get together to improve the human condition? Maybe they could organize into some sort of group that would decide to use shared resources to accomplish that task, and give their approval or disapproval in some sort of democratic fashion.

Now you might be able to realize that the entire purpose of a democratic government is to allow people to decide how to best use their nation's resources. Some people get their warm fuzzies from denying that this is the case.

Do you know how much good research is done by the CDC? NASA? Publicly funded universities? We wouldn't be communicating right now with computers, or over the internet, if it weren't for government spending to improve the human condition.

The goals stated are quite cheap compared to the profiteering war empire the founders warned against becoming. You just have to pull your head out of your ass and look around.

Re:That bullshit is a mile deep

[copponex]

Unless you suggest we euthanize anyone who arrives at a hospital without insurance, then you aren't actually going to address the issue. When it's your mother or father in a life or death situation, I'll bet that the concept of "my" resources and "your" resources become less of a problem.

"Yeah, I'm sorry my mom had to die. But I didn't want her to consume any of her neighbor's resources."

or

"Yeah, well, the kid's mom didn't have any money and died during child birth. It needed a $20,000 operation to save it's life, but we just pumped it full of morphine until it stopped breathing. We billed it's next of kin for the morphine."

It's a sick world that you want to live in.

I don't get...

[Nexzus]

this targetting by the press and governments towards Facebook. Facebook is *entirely* optional. No-one forced you to type in 'www.facebook.com' and press enter. No-one forced you to click signup. No-one forced you to enter your information and click through the legalese. No-one forced you to upload pictures and fill in detailed personal information.

If you're worried about Facebook sharing your personal information, DON'T PUT IT ON THERE!

Re:I don't get...

[Culture20]

this targetting by the press and governments towards Facebook. Facebook is *entirely* optional. No-one forced you to type in 'www.facebook.com' and press enter. No-one forced you to click signup. No-one forced you to enter your information and click through the legalese. No-one forced you to upload pictures and fill in detailed personal information. If you're worried about Facebook sharing your personal information, DON'T PUT IT ON THERE!

No one forced me to go to buy lunch with a CC today, but there are strict regulations regarding whether the restaurant is allowed to share my CC number and name with business partners or make them public. No one forced me to sign a non-disclosure contract with my company, but I can't retroactively declare all of the ND info to be public and share it with my company's competitors.

This is about Facebook changing their ToS after people shared their personal info in a way that was understood by all parties to be restricted to a select group of people (and Facebook for targeted advertising purposes only). Imagine if Facebook is allowed to get away with this. Tomorrow, Google could change their ToS to "All your email and google docs are belong to us. We can alter and repost anywhere under your name, and you agreed to it because you agreed to the 'we can change this ToS at any time' clause. Ah HAHAHA!"

I changed my data to something else, then quit.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a prevailing notion of Facebook to collect and journal the entries made for every eMail address that registers. They keep it in their system as a journal, because the prospect of Information Services is recently to catalogue the populous in attempt to collect genealogical information for various international law firms in their stance to coordinate and resolve the earliest of abandoned debts since the United States of America was founded. Think about it: this has bankruptcy written all over it. They are trying to find the debtors to the United States so the creditors can assign collections agents to recover property.

Think of all the Molungian and native-indians that had no part in the United States and have only been foisted it upon them, because that is where many of the debtors mingled onto. I'm talking about old debts, that roll over to the children. Those debts require registration in every aspect of life, because the game isn't about allowing you pay the debt but how it is done to compel you to dishonor it in courts using Silent tactics in the franchise of limited liability. USA is the bastion of rebellion, and you can ask any proponent of the Confederate States of America on that. It's all doublespeak, and all you need to read is the perview of the Statutes as corporations adapted the code toward.

They have no more resources, they are broke, now they are grasping at inter-generational matters. If you have unfavorable genetics for some minor condition, they will force you to receive treatments. Not washing your dog once every month, they'll send an agent to retrieve that animal from your entrusted custodial standing because of your neglect. Your daughter is playing in the front-yard all by herself on the swing for 30 minutes, despite readily waiting to go to school at 7am: child neglect is addressed by the Administrative ability of a trusted CPS agent assigned by the nearby conservators. Await at the door of your domicile for inspection of your belongings, just to make sure you aren't racist in disallowing well-cultured society from MTV to redecorate. You should allow your kinds to date foreigners, there is no need to fear of international diseases and bodily-contact like the naughty-dance is healthy for a developing mind.

Play more sports, burn books, talk to your television, isn't that right Anonymous Coward?

Facebook?

[memnock]

the elected officials are worried about what's happening in fucking Facebook? perhaps they could do something a little more important for the Internet, like fix the FCC's mandate or whatever, so that they're able to ensure net neutrality.

oh, wait, i forgot: this is Facebook we're talking about! was there an Internet before Facebook? someone, fix Facebook fast or the Internet will break!

come to think of it, let them deal with Facebook. maybe that will keep them from fucking something else up. i don't give a whit about Facebook.

Because that Purge Data option goes in their trash

[Anonymous Coward]

Into their trashcan it goes, for the automated CIA/FBI/NSA/BATFECES agent-drone to collect with it's digital f1ngers.

Tell government to stop abusing our information

[billstewart]

The government collects some data for legitimate purposes and abuses it for other things, and they collect some data for abusive purposes and does even more abusive things with it. Sure, Facebook may do the same thing, but you don't get arrested for driving without a Facebook account, and it's not illegal to tell Facebook that your birthday is Feb. 29th, 1903, or some other bogus date.

Once you give anybody data, they've got it, and they can do pretty much anything they want with it unless you've got an enforceable contract with them, which isn't generally the case with governments. Consider license plates on cars - they used to basically just be a receipt saying you'd paid taxes on the car - but as communications technology improved, it became possible for cops to use it to chase a given car, and now that optical character recognition has improved, it's possible to identify every car on a given street, or every car taking a given bridge, and track that for whatever reason you want. (Even without OCR, San Francisco did that a decade or so ago to identify most of the users of a freeway they were going to tear down, so they could send everybody a postcard telling them to find a different route - they used electronic cameras, but the plates were read in non-real-time by prisoners at the jail.)

Is there any reason you should trust a census with more information beyond "how many people live here"? Yeah, it's nice to be able to trace your ancestors using census records, but these days it may be more reliable to pass that information on to your descendants by giving it to Facebook...

Very Effective Way to Fight Facebook

[Bing Tsher E]

One very effective way to fight Facebook, if this stuff pisses you off as much as it pisses me off, is to set up lots of bogus accounts. Seed their database with total trash made-up people. If enough of us were to do that, their database would quickly become pretty worthless.

Yes. Crapflooding For Social Progress.

I'm sure many Slashbots can see the merit in this idea.

Re:Very Effective Way to Fight Facebook

[dudpixel]

um, assuming you have friends on facebook...and assuming your friends are happy to put up with all the bogus info you put on there...?!

if your friends can tell who the real you is, then I have no doubt facebook can too...

Ignorance

[scottfhardy]

This won't stop anyone from using Facebook. The masses don't even know it happened. They are still worried joining groups like "Stop Facebook from charging 3.99 per month beginning july 10th".

Resistance is Futile!

You lost your right to your "money"

[patiodragon]

...a long time ago. It all THEIR paper now or it is a crime.

The best page of all on Facebook:

[Hurricane78]

http://www.facebook.com/help/contact.php?show_form=delete_account

Easy, simple solution.

[fialar]

Stop using Facebook, altogether.
Don't buy into Mark Suckerberg's crap.

pot, meet kettle

[darjen]

did these senators vote for the patriot act? they are nothing but hypocrites.

I actually remember!

[twoallbeefpatties]

I actually REMEMBER when SNL was funny. Kevin Nealon was running the Weekend Update desk, and was the only guy I can actually remember who was funny at it. And Adam Sandler would occasionally stop by dressed in a cheap tux and sing the week's news in opera form. Good times.

Re:I actually remember!

[mweather]

Franken wrote weekend update when Kevin Nealon was hosting it. Quit the show when they gave the job to Norm MacDonald.

Re:I actually remember!

[jnork]

I actually remember when it was funny... Jane Curtin, Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, John Belushi, Garrett Morris, Laraine Newman, Gilda Radner...

Thank God For Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Reading the comments is always a good 5-minute hate. Much better than PBS.

Facebook Privacy

[andreakulikowski]

The users on Facebook who have the most to lose when their private information is displayed for all to see are exactly the people who have no idea how to manipulate the privacy settings. On the other hand, tweens and teens who have nothing to lose by sharing their info have the know how to keep their profiles sealed shut. Different generations learn differently. Facebook needs to accomodate its policies to what "The Everyman" can understand. The Everyman is the average person on the street, and he certainly doesn't understand that one day Facebook is going to "change it's policy" to release all of his personal information unless he goes to his privacy settings and carefully manipulates them. This is all a ploy by Facebook to share our personal information with the world. Privacy Schmivacy.

facebook

[raymondpl]

I agree with author