Slashdot Mirror


Facebook: Your Personal Data is a Trade Secret

An anonymous reader writes "An Austrian group called Europe versus Facebook has so far made 22 complaints regarding the social network's practices. In the process, the organization has stumbled upon an important tidbit: Facebook says it is not required to give you a copy of some of your personal data if it deems doing so would adversely affect its trade secrets or intellectual property."

33 of 203 comments (clear)

  1. Shock Horror by Cryacin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Of course they'll tell you that. In fact, haven't you realised? You ARE their intellectual property. All you iSheep, Twits and FacePalmers. Go on, put your private life on teh intertubes for all to see. Check in with FourSquare to become the mayor of burger king to get a 10% discount on your next piece of crap for lunch, and watch your insurance company make a silent note. Write on your wall about your cool new Nike Football shoes, and watch targeted advertising appear to you for other football related products.

    The herd is a goldmine, ripe for the picking.

    --
    Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    1. Re:Shock Horror by Cryacin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Keep on drinking the Kool-Aid then chum. It starts with the anonymous herd, and ends with the individual when they become interesting. How much do you think your soon to be ex-wife's divorce lawyer would like to pay to get you fully profiled and sniff out any dirt on you? Of course it can be done via conventional means, it's just much quicker and more efficient online.

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    2. Re:Shock Horror by msauve · · Score: 2

      Heck, if you post publicly, you're everyone's intellectual property. At least you know Facebook is keeping info, but how many others are scraping Facebook and collecting info, and you don't even know?

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    3. Re:Shock Horror by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 5, Funny

      All you iSheep, Twits and FacePalmers.

      He says, on a public web forum.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    4. Re:Shock Horror by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Indeed, although there is not much personal information on Slashdot. The problem is not that people have public lives, it is that Facebook greatly expands the scope of what is "public" while greatly diminishing the scope of what is "private." The information Facebook collects is much broader in scope than Slashdot, and extends beyond what people actively post on Facebook.

      There is also the matter that supposedly private messages on Facebook are not really private at all, a classic case of the "third party server" problem. Unlike email, for which there are well-developed (but rarely used) methods of keeping private messages private, Facebook is designed to thwart such efforts (e.g. to encrypt an email, I can just hit a checkbox, assuming keys have been set up; to encrypt a Facebook message, I have to manually invoke a cryptosystem, copy and paste, and so forth -- a pain even for technically competent users). For most people, the "privacy" issue on Facebook is related to what their friends, coworkers, and potential future contacts can see -- very few people give any thought to the amount of information that Facebook itself has, and for many Facebook has become the primary means of communication.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    5. Re:Shock Horror by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem is not that people have public lives, it is that the INTERNET greatly expands the scope of what is "public" while greatly diminishing the scope of what is "private.

      FTFY

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    6. Re:Shock Horror by rvw · · Score: 2

      Indeed, although there is not much personal information on Slashdot. The problem is not that people have public lives, it is that Facebook greatly expands the scope of what is "public" while greatly diminishing the scope of what is "private." The information Facebook collects is much broader in scope than Slashdot, and extends beyond what people actively post on Facebook.

      The Facebook website is one thing, the Like-buttons on thousands of websites, that's my biggest concern. Whenever you visit such a page, FB logs your visit because that button/script is loaded from their site. Whether you're logged into FB or not, they still log your visit and your IP-address. They obviously don't want you to know that they know which websites you visited and when. Maybe people on /. know about this, but 99% of the regular FB visitors probably don't.

    7. Re:Shock Horror by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      Why is this bad? I'd rather see ads for things I like and might consider buying than scattershot ads for shit I'd never use.

      I take it you missed the Slashdot story a couple of years ago about Amazon giving different prices based on the browser you use? Targeted advertising isn't where it ends. Companies like Google and Facebook often record enough information to tell how much you shop around before buying things, for example. It doesn't take much data mining to work out how much you'd be willing to pay for a specific product. Next time you visit an online store, you may find it's exactly that amount. Meanwhile, it costs 20% less to the next visitor...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  2. Interesting by iluvcapra · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So you, by definition, have knowledge of all of you personal information (otherwise it wouldn't be personal), they must think that they have a way of turning knowledge about your self that is available to you consciously, into information that isn't, for example by analyzing your web history, or use of language, or friends, in order to predict certain cultural preferences, or ad susceptibility. That's perfectly believable, and no, you probably aren't entitled to it. If you don't want them building models of you, don't submit your information.

    --
    Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    1. Re:Interesting by iluvcapra · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It might even be more fun than that. Maybe they know things about you that you never told them, like your gender or age. I would also tend to believe that if they're able to figure out this information about people they're probably entitled to keep the fact of their knowing secret.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    2. Re:Interesting by muon-catalyzed · · Score: 2

      Maybe they know much more via syndication with other networks.

    3. Re:Interesting by Baloroth · · Score: 2

      After reading (well, skimming anyways) TFA, I really feel I should point out Facebook didn't say in TFA that the personal information was a trade secret, only that it would be an exception if it was. Possibly, they omitted information under the other exception, which is if it is exceptionally difficult to provide the information, and only gave both exceptions for maximum ass-coverage (and tinfoil-hat coverage too, apparently).

      It wouldn't surprise me at all if they had more information than you gave them (such as from web tracking) which they don't give out, but TFA mentions data that he knew should have been there that wasn't. This leads me to suspect that this falls under the latter exception, for some reason. There really isn't enough information to know whether Facebook actually considers your data a trade secret (they don't even mention what the data was that Facebook omitted.)

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    4. Re:Interesting by Phrogman · · Score: 2

      Well there was J Edgar Hoover, wasn't he into cross dressing? And he was definitely very right wing...

      --
      "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
    5. Re:Interesting by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      . A coworker today was wondering why Facebook recommended as a friend a person that we recognise the name of from within our company, but in an overseas branch.

      I've got a better one: A colleague who has a facebook account but has never posted anything, not a photo, not even information in the profile got a recommendation from Facebook to add as a friend someone who is in her cancer survivor's group. The absolutely only bit of information about her that she's been able to find on Facebook is a photograph from a different friend's profile in which she appears but is not named in the photo's info. As I said, she has never posted anything about herself and the person who was recommended to her is not the facebook friend of a facebook friend.

      Wrap your head around that one. Now maybe there's some bit of data she forgot about or some connection she has been unable to learn, but she's really a detail-oriented person and has just not been able to determine how this connection was made.

      Either way, it's creepy as hell and she deleted her account, although she has no misconceptions that anything collected about her has been deleted. I guess you would say she "closed" her account because it does not appear that Facebook ever willingly relents a scrap of info.

      My suggestion? Back out slowly, don't try to delete your account. Change your name, get facial reconstruction and move far away.

      I never really liked it much, but I just won't touch that shit any more. I hate to sound like an eccentric old crank but I've been writing letters a lot more lately. I don't even let my eyes linger on the Facebook icon on any webpages I read.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    6. Re:Interesting by crutchy · · Score: 2

      personal information isn't just what you personally divulge. if someone mentions your name in a facebook/twitter/slashdot post (even if someone else sharing the same name), you may be automatically associated with that person (and you may have no idea you were even mentioned anywhere), so even the facephobes may be profiled without their knowing. you don't even need a facebook account. web crawling is all just associative data. though i bet google has bigger treasure troves of this data than facebook.

    7. Re:Interesting by crutchy · · Score: 2

      nothing wrong with being a facephobe. i have a facebook account, but its pretty much so my wife can tag me in her photos. i hate social networking, but i also hate socialising. slashdot is about as social as i prefer

    8. Re:Interesting by houghi · · Score: 2

      I had an account for some weeks. I did NOT comply to their demand of using my own name. I try to keep my real life name off the Internet almost from the beginning.

      The reason was privacy. Do I have something to hide? You bet I do. It is called my personal life and it is MINE.

      And if Facebook does not want to give out the personal information they have as required by law, well then delete that data and don't accept anybody from Europe.

      The biggest hint something was seriously wrong with it was the fact that you needed to give your real name. A few years ago we did some silly test. We saw some persons name and we made a bet who had this strangers on the phone first with only information from the Internet. This was before Facebook or even Google. It was so much easier then we thought, it wasn't even a challenge. One girl we saw contacted one of us with YahooPager to chat and it took us 10 minutes when the following words were typed: Your phone will ring now!

      And this was just some goofy guys fooling around. We had no system. We had no knowledge and we had no own database with links between people. We just knew how to use the search engines of that time.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    9. Re:Interesting by MadKeithV · · Score: 2

      It might even be more fun than that. Maybe they know things about you that you never told them, like your gender or age. I would also tend to believe that if they're able to figure out this information about people they're probably entitled to keep the fact of their knowing secret.

      Disclaimer, I am not a lawyer, but insofar as I understand the law this cannot apply in Europe - in Europe they are required by law to give you access to all personal data stored about you so that you can correct or remove it. See the Personal Data Law, specifically the data subject's "right of access" to personal data.

    10. Re:Interesting by MancunianMaskMan · · Score: 3, Informative

      simple. your colleague user her email address to sign up, which the other cancer survivor hat previously entered into facebook search to figure whether she is on facebook. facebook remembered the search even though it didn't return any matches at the time, but made good use of it by suggesting a probable friend candidate.
      creepy: yes
      creepy by facebook creepiness standards(R): no

  3. Remember... by LqdSlpStrm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If it is free, you are not the client. You are the product, and you are being sold.

    1. Re:Remember... by subreality · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'll drop the meme when they stop treating me like a product.

    2. Re:Remember... by tangent · · Score: 2

      No, you most certainly are the product.

      It's more like how a cattle rancher has to be careful not to let too many of his cows run off, or get kilt by rattlers.

      The rancher's expressions of concern are by way of protecting his product, rather than protection of a client relationship.

    3. Re:Remember... by roundscimitar · · Score: 2

      I created a free site, truefriender but the free users are subsidized by the paying users, the 5 gig account is free. And unlike facebook, since there is a direct path to income, advertisements are not needed, and neither is personal information, so we encrypt everything. We are trying to make a secure private social network. Please don't mod this down cause I'm just trying to get the word out to people who might be interested in this service.

  4. This actually makes some sense. by LordArgon · · Score: 2

    Whether good or bad, the type and structure of the data stored can definitely hint at the proprietary stuff they're doing with it.

  5. Frank Zappa had incredible foresight by stevegee58 · · Score: 2

    He was originally talking about television but it applies to Facebook as well:

    ...Your mind is totally controlled
    It has been stuffed into my mold
    And you will do as you are told
    Until the rights to you are sold...

  6. Quantity by WPIDalamar · · Score: 2

    It could be that the quantity of data they collect is far more than anyone suspects and that's the trade secret.

  7. Re:Please let the EU do this by BlueScreenO'Life · · Score: 2

    That is true for companies with which you have a contract that involves sending them personal information.

    Whether Facebook and others like Google, Microsoft, etc. are bound by the DPD remains to be seen. They are not from a EU country and they did not sign a contract with you - I don't think there's an official client-provider relation between their users (especially their EU users) and them. Some court might try to force them to hand over the data on account of national laws but that's open to interpretation. It would be interesting to see how that would work out though.

  8. Re:OK, everybody place a legal notice in the paper by ad454 · · Score: 2

    Two can play at this game. Everybody place a legal notice in the paper that does essentially the same thing, except that you are simply claiming your own personal data. State that your data may not be used without a contract and payment subject to negotiation, and that you regard unsigned agreements as invalid. It may or may not stand up in court, but it'll be a helluva good show.

    That won't work for adults since they can claim that as the owner of your personal data, you automatically give them a licence to use your data when you agreed to use their services. It might work for minors, since in many countries, minors are not allowed to sign contracts or give up rights, without parents' permission.

    For adults, one can formally sign the complete rights to their personal information to a trusted individual (like a parent) or organization, before joining any social network service. Then have the trusted entity sue the social network service when they use your personal data without permission.

    Of course if that trusted entity decides to "DO EVIL", then you will be total screwed.

  9. Actually, by BlueScreenO'Life · · Score: 2
    After reading TFA and the fine website of Europe vs Facebook it turns out they are honoring the European (Irish) law and sending CDs with personal info to whoever requests them; the kind of data they're refusing to hand over is:

    "Data like the biometrical information or ”likes” are seen at trade secret, intellectual property or are simply too complicated to send to users according to Facebook."

    It raises the question whether it's reasonable to request from them information such as your "likes". It sounds to me like asking a company to hand you over a log with your phone calls and email exchanges; I don't think they have that obligation.

  10. Re:Facebook is a business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Surely these Austrians aren't naive enough to think they're going to shove their laws down an international organization's throat? If they object that strongly, try to have Facebook blocked and banned from Austria. That is and should be their only legal recourse -- you cannot have international organizations subject to the whims of every nation in the world that the internet reaches.

    Yes and no. What you are saying sounds dangerously close to claiming Facebook is completely above the law (of every country) and can do whatever the fuck it likes just because it is multinational. Unless we establish a planet wide government (which is a bad idea anyway), I don't think corporate immunity to prosecution in all jurisdictions is a good idea.

    BTW, companies are usually subject to the laws of countries that it chooses to do business in. IANAL, but Facebook could have just made "Country" a mandatory field when signing up and rejecting anyone who selects "Austria". Sure, you can get around that easily but it shows intent to not operate in that jurisdiction.

    Nor do you have any "rights" other than those set out in the terms of service, other than the right to refuse those terms and go elsewhere.

    Also, corporations are legal constructs, they exist because the government says they do and accepts paperwork applying to create one. This means that you can, and in many countries [other than the US perhaps], do have rights (typically called "consumer protection"), there are also privacy laws which may give you the right to demand a company delete everything they know about you and require explicit permission to sell to 3rd parties, etc. Most interactions with companies outside of a one-shot purchase will also use contract law which also includes protections against 'unfairness' and such. [Try including "you accept to allow us to enslave you first born and have them become our property" in a Terms of Service, no government outside of a hell-hole with accept the legitimacy of that and will either reject or penalise the company for including it]

  11. Do Products Have No Rights? by ohnocitizen · · Score: 2

    Can someone explain why "you are the product" translates to carte blanche for facebook to do what they want with your data? If the FBI maintains a file on me, using purely public information, do I not have a right to that information? I don't understand why "you are using this for free" translates to "you deserve whatever they do to you". If Facebook charged for their service, would I suddenly be entitled to more? So do products (aka users) have zero rights? Should we?

  12. Re:Facebook is a business by Animats · · Score: 2

    Unlike some governments, businesses are not subject to "Freedom of Information" queries.

    In the European Union, businesses are.

    THE DATA SUBJECT'S RIGHT OF ACCESS TO DATA

    Member States shall guarantee every data subject the right to obtain from the controller:
    (a) without constraint at reasonable intervals and without excessive delay or expense:
    - confirmation as to whether or not data relating to him are being processed and information at least as to the purposes of the processing, the categories of data concerned, and the recipients or categories of recipients to whom the data are disclosed,
    - communication to him in an intelligible form of the data undergoing processing and of any available information as to their source,
    - knowledge of the logic involved in any automatic processing of data concerning him at least in the case of the automated decisions referred to in Article 15 (1);
    (b) as appropriate the rectification, erasure or blocking of data the processing of which does not comply with the provisions of this Directive, in particular because of the incomplete or inaccurate nature of the data;
    (c) notification to third parties to whom the data have been disclosed of any rectification, erasure or blocking carried out in compliance with (b), unless this proves impossible or involves a disproportionate effort.

  13. Re:Please let the EU do this by xaxa · · Score: 2

    That is true for companies with which you have a contract that involves sending them personal information.

    No, it's true for all companies that hold personal information. See the ICO for more details (for the UK).

    They are not from a EU country

    http://www.facebook.com/terms.php

    The website under www.facebook.com and the services on these pages are being offered to you by:

      Facebook Ireland Limited
      Hanover Reach, 5-7 Hanover Quay, Dublin 2 Ireland