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.
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...
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
because i have 0 facebook friends.
The major problem I see here is that Facebook is allowed to change its terms without notifying anyone.
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
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.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
The Senators aren't telling people how to use Facebook, they're telling Facebook how (not) to use their customer's data.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
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.)
If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
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.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black