Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
Perhaps Senator Franken thinks the same thing?
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
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...
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...
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
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.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
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.
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.
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!"