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.
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.
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.
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 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.