Slashdot Mirror


Facebook: the Law Says You Can't Have Your Data

An anonymous reader writes "After making 22 complaints regarding Facebook's various practices, the Austrian group Europe versus Facebook 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. I followed up with Facebook and learned the company insists the law places 'reasonable limits' on the data that has to be provided."

115 of 165 comments (clear)

  1. Skeptical by nonprofiteer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've looked into this, and I'm fairly certain that the particular piece of information that Facebook is holding back from these (800+ page) reports is a user's biometric faceprint. Claiming that the code for those prints is Facebook's intellectual property does NOT strike me as unreasonable.

    1. Re:Skeptical by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      it's no different than claiming a photo of me is facebooks intellectual property. New format, same old argument.

    2. Re:Skeptical by moderatorrater · · Score: 1

      Where did they get the user's biometric faceprint from? Probably from their photos, in which case I would argue that they shouldn't be using a trade secret that results in information they would have to disclose by law. Either that or else they should transform the faceprint into something that wouldn't reveal the information they want to keep secret.

    3. Re:Skeptical by Qwertie · · Score: 1

      It's odd that neither of the ZDNet articles (to which Slashdot has linked in recent days) tell us what information Facebook is said to be holding back. So what information are you withholding from us, ZDNet? Is the story not juicy enough if it is too specific?

    4. Re:Skeptical by omnichad · · Score: 1

      You can't copyright facts. A person's face is a fact as much as their fingerprint is. Once it's distilled into purely factual data, they can't really claim ownership of it, since that's effectively claiming ownership of my face.

    5. Re:Skeptical by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Fortunately, when you clicked the 'I agree' button, you gave Facebook a commercial, transferable, sublicensable, license to anything that you uploaded, and you agreed that you owned the copyright, or the right to make such a grant, on everything that you uploaded.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    6. Re:Skeptical by mcavic · · Score: 1

      Data that I provide to Facebook cannot constitute a Facebook trade secret.

      If Facebook is creating derivative data, then that data is theirs and they don't have to give it to me or tell me about it.

    7. Re:Skeptical by Kenja · · Score: 1

      You clicking "I agree" does not give Facebook the right to my face just because you uploaded a picture of me. Or at least it shouldn't.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    8. Re:Skeptical by ArhcAngel · · Score: 1

      That is precisely why I keep a "clean room" guy on retainer. Any time I will be installing/registering any software/service I leave the room. When I come back the software/service is magically installed/registered. I actually hired another guy to find the guy. That way I don't even know who he is. I just leave the money on the table next to the keyboard.

      Plausible Deniability BABY!

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    9. Re:Skeptical by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      Except you very much DO own your likeness and it's use thereof.

    10. Re:Skeptical by TechLA · · Score: 1

      By using or accessing Facebook, you agree to this Statement.

      Yeah, doesn't help you much.

    11. Re:Skeptical by idontgno · · Score: 1

      And, by the massively transformative process of quadruple ROT-26 (after base64 encoding, and followed by base64 decoding), they are creating derivative data which is ALL THEIRS. THEIRS THEIRS THEIRS ALL THEIRS MWAHAHAHA!

      And a trade secret, too, so completely immune to your puny powers of "Freedom of Information" and "Data Rights".

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    12. Re:Skeptical by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      you gave them the right to transform and copy the images by uploading them if you read the TOS.
      Now of course we assume that transform == resize and embed tags, and that copy == into database, but that does not preclude this particular derivative work either.
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    13. Re:Skeptical by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

      And if someone else uploads an image with me in it... without my consent or possibly even without my knowledge?
      How does my visage become their "intellectual property"?
      What if I don't even HAVE a fB account but someone puts my photo out there?
      I have agreed to nothing and they can't derive my permission from someone else.

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    14. Re:Skeptical by suomynonAyletamitlU · · Score: 1

      Fortunately, when you clicked the 'I agree' button, you gave Facebook a commercial, transferable, sublicensable, license

      Caution: IANAL

      No, I didn't. Contract law, on behalf of the signatory, assigned them those rights. Because that contract was non-negotiable, I didn't "give them rights" (note active voice); the "rights were assigned" (passive voice) as per posted notices.

      Now, do I have a terrible problem with this? No, but that fact depends on one critical conceit: that the party writing the non-negotiable agreement is not using heady legal language to allow them to commit crimes or other injurious behavior while staying within the letter of the law. This is the major problem; nobody, good or evil, writes negotiable user agreements for software or similar user services, and the good and evil contracts are sufficiently close in length and form that it takes a legal expert to tell the difference. This shifts the balance of power away from both signatories and towards the legal system, which is only a good idea if the legal system is both vigilant and trustworthy. Vigilant, because preventing the abuse of contract law requires an examination of the contract before it is signed (or before it is given legitimacy by the court or its agents), and trustworthy, because it is remarkably easy to sweep abuse of contract law under the rug, simply because the victim is a signatory and is therefore assumed to have fully understood it.

      I don't trust the US legal system to be vigilant or trustworthy when it comes to abuses of contract law, and I have seen absolutely nothing that suggests this will change.

    15. Re:Skeptical by dan828 · · Score: 1

      “If the law supposes that,” said Mr. Bumble, “the law is a ass—a idiot." Seems to fit. Apologies to Dickens.

    16. Re:Skeptical by TechLA · · Score: 1

      You don't hold a copyright to that image. The person who took the photograph does.

    17. Re:Skeptical by Anonymus · · Score: 1

      That's true, but unless they got a model release...

    18. Re:Skeptical by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      FUCK....I just GPL'd my face!

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    19. Re:Skeptical by julesh · · Score: 1

      Sorry, what gives you the right to decide who can do what with pictures of your face?

      If I have a picture of you, and I want to perform some processing of it, and doing so does not adversely effect you, why should I not perform that processing?

    20. Re:Skeptical by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 2

      If I have a picture of you, and I want to perform some processing of it, and doing so does not adversely effect you, why should I not perform that processing?

      Because in Europe, such a picture would be considered personal data pretty much everywhere, and thus it would fall under data protection laws that explicitly provide certain rights to individuals regarding personal data about them and certain limits on what anyone else may do with that data. And no, you can't magically negate all of those rights and responsibilities with a contract of adhesion.

      One of the rights typically available to individuals under those laws is the right to inspect any personal data held about them. Wriggling out of that one is going to take a lot of shady legalese, which appears to be what Facebook is engaging in here. Staying wriggled out of it if it turns out that the data processing is inconsistent with any registration Facebook has made with any national data protection authority is going to be very tricky indeed, and if the data in question is beyond what an individual might reasonably have understood and consented to and/or if the use of the data in question is potentially damaging to the individual, that's going to be pretty much game, set and match.

      Facebook need to tread carefully here, because privacy is becoming a hot political topic in many places as the backlash against excessive "security" measures and intrusive surveillance by both governments and big business grows. There are basically two ways I can see that Facebook could realistically fail catastrophically within quite a short period of time. One is the obvious: someone else does enough of the same things well enough that Facebook no longer has critical mass and people start to use alternatives routinely again instead of assuming that close enough to all of their friends and family also use Facebook; this is the fate that befell almost every other major social network as Facebook rose to supremacy. The other is to upset one national privacy body too many and find themselves legislated into impotence.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    21. Re:Skeptical by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      From GP I make up that Facebook uses photos where a person is tagged to create some kind of data object that they can use to find the same person in other photos (as has been discussed here before). This data is a representation of a fact, and as such copyrightable, and I think it can be considered a trade secret. The trade secret part being how this facial recognition is done.

    22. Re:Skeptical by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      Well, given that we're talking about an organisation called Europe vs Facebook, Facebook's international HQ is in Ireland, and the laws Facebook are referring to apply in European jurisdictions... everyone here except you, I guess.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    23. Re:Skeptical by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      Well said, sir or madam! No mod points so I will just say huzzah,

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    24. Re:Skeptical by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      You don't hold a copyright to that image. The person who took the photograph does.

      My life is a work of art. All photographs of me a derivative works.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    25. Re:Skeptical by allo · · Score: 1

      copyright != right on the image.

      The right on image is from the person which is primary target. If you take a portrait of me, you cannot publish it. At least in countries with reasonable data privacy laws, like Germany.

    26. Re:Skeptical by julesh · · Score: 1

      Because in Europe, such a picture would be considered personal data pretty much everywhere, and thus it would fall under data protection laws that explicitly provide certain rights to individuals regarding personal data about them and certain limits on what anyone else may do with that data.

      Yes. But those rights are limited: you can basically only prevent processing that is actively harmful to you. Which is why I phrased my question as I did. European law *does not* prevent Facebook storing information about you if they want to, as long as they do not use that information in a way that prejudices your legitimate interests. Kenja seemed to be arguing that they *should* be prevented from storing and/or processing an image of you without your permission, and I'd still like to know why...

    27. Re:Skeptical by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      But those rights are limited: you can basically only prevent processing that is actively harmful to you. Which is why I phrased my question as I did. European law *does not* prevent Facebook storing information about you if they want to, as long as they do not use that information in a way that prejudices your legitimate interests.

      I don't think that's true in general. For example, you would be on shaky ground if you were storing and processing personal data without the subject's knowledge and consent, such as if data about one subject was provided to you by someone else without the subject's knowledge, which was the example scenario that Kenja described. There are various other conditions under which processing is also allowed, but it's hard to see how Facebook could appeal to any of them in such a case.

      Although there are certain EU-wide minimum standards, it's also worth keeping in mind that some nations implement stricter privacy and data protection controls than others. For example, while the UK is relatively easy-going (perhaps too much so IMHO), Germany tends to be very protective of individual rights in such matters (understandably, given their history). Presumably the most relevant jurisdiction in this case is Ireland, but I don't know off the top of my head where on the spectrum they fall.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  2. Sad trombone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Hot off the presses yesterday
    http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/10/12/226257/facebook-your-personal-data-is-a-trade-secret

  3. Dupe by TechLA · · Score: 2
    1. Re:Dupe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No it isn't. The link is in the story and this is a follow up!

  4. I'm really sick of this trend by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If I have any sort of interaction with any company besides a pure cash transaction, somehow I'm ceding all rights to my information. I get more calls on my landline from 3rd party vendors who've purchased my profile from some company than I do from people I know. I bought a house 4 years ago and my mailbox was stuffed with targeted new homeowner fliers on the first day I opened the mailbox. I filled a prescription with an online pharmacy and now I've got people calling me trying to sell me all kinds of healthcare products. I bought one political magazine prescription (more out of pity than interest) and now I get tons of fliers and ads from special interest groups. I made a few small dollar donations ($20 range) in the last couple elections and now I have politicians from all over the country both calling and writing me for donations!

    We need a privacy bill of rights. Opt-in, full disclosure, and deterrent-level fines and fees for breaking the rules.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    1. Re:I'm really sick of this trend by Desler · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You did opt-in. Did you not read the TOS? It's your own fault for not reading it fully.

    2. Re:I'm really sick of this trend by Lord+Balto · · Score: 2

      So, what? I'm supposed to go live in a cave? When you have to "opt in" in order to get a service you need, that's coersion in my book.

    3. Re:I'm really sick of this trend by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      No kidding. Anymore, money is made from your disclosure and release of personal information.

      You'd think paying for something is a good solution, as well, but it's not... most of the time. When you sign up for accounts, that information is sold to help keep the cost low.

      The only things that are truly secure online are things that most people can't afford.

    4. Re:I'm really sick of this trend by Teun · · Score: 2
      To an extend Europe already has such a privacy bill of rights .

      EU nations have their individual ways of incorporating it in law but like in this Austrian case I'm quite sure it sure gives you full rights to your own data.

      Yes I know it's quite shocking there are valid laws not passed by the USofA congress.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    5. Re:I'm really sick of this trend by Desler · · Score: 2

      Because without facebook you would whither up and die, right? Oh wait, you wouldn't.

    6. Re:I'm really sick of this trend by MozeeToby · · Score: 2

      When you have to "opt in" in order to get a service you need

      Need? I won't argue that this isn't sometimes the case, the idea that you must hand over this information for basic services like your ISP or other utilities is very concerning. But this is Facebook we're talking about here. No one needs Facebook. You might want it, and it might make it easier to stay in touch with your friends and family, but you don't need it. It's up to you to weigh your personal information against the service they provide; to reiterate, you are paying for their services with your personal information.

    7. Re:I'm really sick of this trend by cparker15 · · Score: 2

      Hmm. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

      --
      Have you driven a fnord... lately?

      You must wait a little bit before using this resource; please try again later.

    8. Re:I'm really sick of this trend by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Funny

      You did opt-in. Did you not read the TOS? It's your own fault for not reading it fully.

      wut?

      Facebook Terms of Use

      ... ikpoo foobus dorsat frobnym yinfun grostnit and all your base are belong to us, hitherto shall be volpim lepsum kruften veeblefetzer potrzebie ...

      Well, dang!

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    9. Re:I'm really sick of this trend by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 1

      ... get a service you need, ...

      If you think you "need" Facebook, the odds are that you need faceslap instead (and maybe a lot of it).

      --
      Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    10. Re:I'm really sick of this trend by hedwards · · Score: 1

      No, hyperbole aside, there's an increasing number of things that one is locked out of if one doesn't choose to do business with FB. Things like contests and sometimes jobs. It's scummy, but there are employers that insist upon having access to view a potential employees FB page, even though it's extremely poor judgment.

    11. Re:I'm really sick of this trend by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

      Coercion would be when you have to opt-out.

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    12. Re:I'm really sick of this trend by shentino · · Score: 1

      The dumb part was actually reading the "we reserve the right to change our terms at any time" and NOT expecting Facebook to sneak in undeclinable leaks in your privacy.

    13. Re:I'm really sick of this trend by shentino · · Score: 1

      So facebook is to social networking what microsoft and windows are to personal computers.

    14. Re:I'm really sick of this trend by shentino · · Score: 1

      Regulators are pussies because corporate america has our politicians by the balls.

    15. Re:I'm really sick of this trend by shentino · · Score: 1

      Voting with your wallet and whatnot by agreeing not to do business with them is all well and good...Until someone ELSE refuses to do business with YOU if you don't.

      Example: Drop facebook, become harder to hire by bosses who are happy to pick easily snoopable sheeple over you.

      When being smart is a disadvantage and you're competing with an army of morons, it's not easy to win.

    16. Re:I'm really sick of this trend by migla · · Score: 1

      >No one needs Facebook.

      Facebook is a de facto standard. You also don't need ears or a voice. It's just helluva lot easier and more convenient to communicate if you have these things, depending on your surroundings.

      Myself, I've so far resisted signing up, but it has meant I don't hear or get heard as easily among facebooking peers, of which there are plenty among friends, family and acquaintances.

      I'd say there is an unfair balance of power between facebook and the little person, which will lead to the little person being coerced into accepting unfavorable terms, as the alternative of being an outsider may feel even worse.

      --
      Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
    17. Re:I'm really sick of this trend by lynnae · · Score: 1

      how would it be detrimental the the job process then if you didn't have a facebook page.
      The employer asks to see it, you say "I don't have one", then what, they accuse you of lying?

    18. Re:I'm really sick of this trend by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      Be careful, he might sell your email address to Viagra and 419 scammers.

      =P

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    19. Re:I'm really sick of this trend by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      No, hyperbole aside, there's an increasing number of things that one is locked out of if one doesn't choose to do business with FB. Things like contests and sometimes jobs. It's scummy, but there are employers that insist upon having access to view a potential employees FB page, even though it's extremely poor judgment.

      Interesting...I've seen none of this. I have never been on FB...and have no problems not being on it.

      I think there was an article here on /. about some service...(spotify?) that required a FB account, but that's about all I've ever seen.

      Employment based on having a FB account? Hmm..what level jobs are asking for that? I've certainly never had it come up with any tech jobs I've looked at, had or interviewed for....

      Can people cite specific examples of job requirements to have a FB account? I don't often enter contests...with some exceptions and those I use throw away email addresses to try to keep the spam level down...but since I don't enter that many, there may be some with FB requirements, but if I ran across those, I'd just figure it wasn't worth my time on that one....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    20. Re:I'm really sick of this trend by Otis+B.+Dilroy+III · · Score: 1

      This can be largely avoided.

      I used to buy a new performance car every two years. This system ate me up. Around 2002 after I had just bought a new home and a new SVT Cobra in 2001 I would get a dozen credit card solicitations in the mail each day. The record was 27 in one day.

      Then I:

      Only finance cars through my credit union.
      Called the 800 number to stop credit card solicitations.
      Paid the phone company 5 bucks a month for callerid so that I can block calls yhat won't show the number. This doesn't stop spoofers but the volume is way down.
      Got on the federal do-not-call list and actually filed complaints.
      Only purchase magazine subscriptions from the publisher, not from the clearinghouse or any of the fools going door to door.
      With a few exceptions such as Amazon, only purchase items on the internet from companies from which I have already purchased items via phone or in person.
      Never give my phone number to any merchant, no matter how pissy they get (Sears can get pretty pissy)
      Give locally. Last Christmas I put several hundred dollars worth of toys in the toys-for-tots at the local fire station. I had to get the firemen to bring out a new barrel. They were impressed. It felt far better than writing a check.
      Homebuying is more problematical. There are really three players. Your realtor, the finance company, and the title company. I bought a house in 2008. My realtor is a friend. He doesn't sell my info because he doesn't want me to dump any junk mail in his swimming pool. I financed through the credit union. They never sell my name. That leaves the title company. The sold my name, but removing two the three cut the volume way down.

    21. Re:I'm really sick of this trend by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      Look at it this way. Imagine you're trying to give a speech, but the people in the back of the room can't hear you. I've got a bullhorn handy, is it my duty to give it to you so that you can be heard? What if I make my living by renting out bullhorns to public speakers? If I ask you for $1 in exchange for the bullhorn is that wrong?

      I never said it didn't make life easier, in fact I said quite the opposite. All I said was that it wasn't a requirement to have a normal healthy life, and considering you yourself are able to live without it I can't see how you can disagree with that. They offer a product, they trade access to said product in exchange for your personal information. If your information is more valuable to you than their product, don't sign up.

    22. Re:I'm really sick of this trend by Killall+-9+Bash · · Score: 1

      No, they just don't call you for a 2nd interview.

      --
      "Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
    23. Re:I'm really sick of this trend by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      I have yet to encounter an employer that requires this either personally or through my friends.
      I had one friend who's employer asked if he had a FB page. He said he did but that it was marked private. They did not pursue it further.
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    24. Re:I'm really sick of this trend by fhic · · Score: 1

      Yes, need.

      My local paper of record (the San Diego Union-Tribune) REQUIRES a valid Facebook account to comment on everything they publish online. Given that I'm not quite willing to forgo my right to comment publicly on what they publish, I need to have a Facebook account.

      (I leave the idiocy of their decision for another comment.)

    25. Re:I'm really sick of this trend by game+kid · · Score: 2

      I like that Facebook lets you create a frobnym for your own grostnit or yinfun (even if you're just a dorsat), but forcing you to put their kruften in your veeblefetzer is just cruel.

      --
      You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
    26. Re:I'm really sick of this trend by Lisandro · · Score: 1

      Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom of audience. You have the right to say whatever you want, as much as the rest of us have a right to ignore you if we decide so.

    27. Re:I'm really sick of this trend by Anonymus · · Score: 1

      What do you use facebook for if not letting family members know what is going on in your life or connecting with your real-life friends?

    28. Re:I'm really sick of this trend by citylivin · · Score: 1

      "My local paper of record (the San Diego Union-Tribune) REQUIRES a valid Facebook account to comment on everything they publish online."

      Awwww.. Now you can only comment on thousands of other non broken message boards! the horror!

      The only people that use facebook are people who did not grow up learning that you should NEVER use your real name online. I have managed perfectly fine without a facebook account and stating that you *need* one is just laughable.

      Personally, I would rather leave the world wide web than post my real name and picture online. Facebook is vanity pure and simple.

      --
      As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
    29. Re:I'm really sick of this trend by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      We need a privacy bill of rights. Opt-in, full disclosure, and deterrent-level fines and fees for breaking the rules.

      Yes, but in the meantime submit all your phone numbers to The National Do Not Call Registry.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    30. Re:I'm really sick of this trend by pudding7 · · Score: 1

      What the hell kind of job requires the employer to review your FB profile as part of the application process?

    31. Re:I'm really sick of this trend by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      No, hyperbole aside, there's an increasing number of things that one is locked out of if one doesn't choose to do business with FB. Things like contests and sometimes jobs. It's scummy, but there are employers that insist upon having access to view a potential employees FB page, even though it's extremely poor judgment.

      Yes. They can ask.

      And if that becomes an issue the next time I go job hunting, they'll be able to see my Facebook page. Now, mind you, I've never had a Facebook page, but that doesn't mean a potential employer won't be able to see my Facebook page. Well, a Facebook page with my name and picture on it.

      Anyone that can't figure out he needs to set up a fake Facebook account probably isn't worth hiring anyway.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    32. Re:I'm really sick of this trend by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      No, they just don't call you for a 2nd interview.

      Seems whacked though. I have the feeling it's about more than the interview process. They probably want to be on your friends list so they can make sure you aren't posting anything negative about them while you're working for them.

      Yeah, sleazy. If you don't want your employees posting bad stuff about you, don't treat them badly.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    33. Re:I'm really sick of this trend by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Can people cite specific examples of job requirements to have a FB account?

      As former Law Enforcement I can tell you that FB is a great way to be fired or placed on Administrative Leave. Also, it can cause you to be declined for promotions or with other departments

      I don't think that was the question. I think he wants to know of people that have been denied a position for not having a Facebook account. I can understand that if you do have one (or any public Internet presence, for that matter) and you post negative information (accurate or otherwise) about your employer, that you may find yourself censured.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    34. Re:I'm really sick of this trend by ewibble · · Score: 1

      Most contracts, I have read including loan agreements, have this type of clause, I think this type clause should be banned from any contract. Who in there right mind would sign a agreement that effectively says the other party can do what they want. How can you agree to terms and conditions you don't know.

    35. Re:I'm really sick of this trend by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      I have yet to encounter an employer that requires this either personally or through my friends. I had one friend who's employer asked if he had a FB page. He said he did but that it was marked private. They did not pursue it further. -nB

      That was probably good enough for them: they just wanted to know if your friend was likely to be writing about them in public.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    36. Re:I'm really sick of this trend by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Your tagline is very odd ... it says "Have you driven a ... lately?" What does that mean?

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    37. Re:I'm really sick of this trend by swalve · · Score: 1

      No, just use your fucking brain and don't put things on a SOCIAL NETWORKING SITE that you don't want other people to see.

    38. Re:I'm really sick of this trend by fferreres · · Score: 1

      In practice, ISP are easily replaceable, Facebook is not.

      --
      unfinished: (adj.)
    39. Re:I'm really sick of this trend by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Not the junk mail at his new house. That was from the US postal service which is now 75% junk mail. He "opted into" that by buying a house in the US.

      OP also probably meant opt-in as in by actual choice, not "You agree to be spammed terms or you go without the internet, e-mail, facebook, phone service, etc." I'd agree that it's probably wishing for pie in the sky, but blaming him for it is just rationalizing big corporate overlords annoying us mere mortals.

    40. Re:I'm really sick of this trend by mandelbr0t · · Score: 1

      No, the TOS was never presented to me. I filled in my email address and password, and now I've given Facebook the right to do whatever they want with what I posted? What person would willingly give Facebook the right to distribute DELETED information to anyone with some cash? My accounts are deleted, Facebook's file should be too.

      --
      "Please describe the scientific nature of the 'whammy'" - Agent Scully
    41. Re:I'm really sick of this trend by mandelbr0t · · Score: 1

      Apparently pretty much any job in existence. I really hope someone manages to win a lawsuit against a potential employer who discriminated against them on the basis of their FB profile. Without some kind of line in the sand, employers get away with absolute insanity. I can't afford to hire a PI to investigate a potential employer, why should they get access to the same sort of information?

      --
      "Please describe the scientific nature of the 'whammy'" - Agent Scully
    42. Re:I'm really sick of this trend by shentino · · Score: 1

      It depends, and I'm speaking of practical consequences, not theoretical principles.

      The first one basically states that if you don't want to do business with ScumCorp XYZ because you object to them for some reason, that's a good thing to not do.

      The second one however deals with Acme ABC affilitating itself with ScumCorp XYZ and refusing to play ball with you unless you play ball with ScumCorp XYZ. Which, if Acme ABC provides an essential service that it's hard to go without, or if the providers of said service are all at the mercy of XYZ, may mean that to get that service you have to kiss ass with XYZ no matter how much you may dislike them.

      For a practical example, consider Facebook as ScumCorp XYZ, which makes a business out of sheeple whoring their personal information out to facbook's advertisers, and also provides an unexpected perk to Acme ABC's industry, say...prospective employers that see fit to use Facebook to help them screen applicants.

      If bosses use facebook to evaluate an applicant, and consider lack of facebook as a black mark during the hiring process "if you don't have a facebook for me to snoop through don't bother applying" style, then you'll be competing against a bunch of sheeple who get ahead of you in the job line because they don't mind selling their souls to get a job. While you, the guy with the principles, get crowded out of the market.

      Refusing to do business with someone on your own initiative is a basic right. it's when you collude with others, either by design or accident, that it gets murky.

      Company A having influence on who Company B chooses to do business with is not often a good thing.

    43. Re:I'm really sick of this trend by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Company A having influence on who Company B chooses to do business with is not often a good thing.

      Company B is choosing that influence. FaceBook's compelling nature here is that it offers a beneficial opportunity to company B. It isn't blackmailing B, or in any way at all forcing B to participate. Company B actually wants information about prospective employees and is seeking to get it.

      You also lost me when you equated creating a FaceBook account with selling your soul. You do realize that you can create a FaceBook account and then never post personal information, right? The data FaceBook will have is your name, your IP address, and the fact that you havent ever posted anything, friended anybody, or played any of those games, or logged in since account creation...

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    44. Re:I'm really sick of this trend by just+fiddling+around · · Score: 1

      I am not sure I encountered a TOS lately that does not incorporate this language. Even my cellular service has that!

      Not that it could stand in court, mind you, but I am sure that I will only get dinged enough that I am not willing to pay a lawyer to make it right.

      --
      You're not old until regret takes the place of your dreams.
    45. Re:I'm really sick of this trend by imric · · Score: 1

      Nope you can't here, either. It's just that the people over here are morons, and still do business with companies that pretend they can, and also act as if they HAVE given up those rights. Most people here, if they signed their soul away, would only grumble about being forced to attend satanic rituals.

      --
      Paranoia is a Survival Trait!
    46. Re:I'm really sick of this trend by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      which of course is covered by a company directive stating that all communications relating to the company must follow a specific guideline. In my case I can not comment at all under my name about specific company stuff, and if I post a review of a released product I have to post a prominent disclaimer that it is my opinion and is in no way endorsed by my employer.

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
  5. Credit agencies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Forget Facebook. You agree to terms of service with them. Of course no one ever reads those terms, but at least you're agreeing to a relationship with them. I don't get the credit agencies. I have no direct relationship with the credit agencies, but they collect all this data on me and it's MY responsibility to monitor and correct it if it's wrong. And if I want to check that data more than once a year, I have to pay them for MY OWN DATA.

    1. Re:Credit agencies by MrSmith0011000100110 · · Score: 1

      You saved me from making the same argument. So I'll add on a little bit. The Cloud...dun dun dun. Since the latest trend is storage in the cloud, think about how much of YOUR data will never EVER go away, no matter how hard you try. Facebook is just a small example of the amount of crap people are committing to be forever out of their grasp.

    2. Re:Credit agencies by hedwards · · Score: 1

      That is true, however, there isn't a reasonable basis for suggesting that there's informed consent when the ToS are full of legalese requiring an attorney to decipher. Legally, it doesn't matter, but in terms of what a reasonable person thinks, it's absurd.

      Ultimately, most politicians are either rich or attorneys, and the latter is usually also the former. It's astonishing to me how folks seem to think that paying an attorney $300 every time they come in contact with a EULA or ToS is reasonable.

    3. Re:Credit agencies by houghi · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I read the conditions of my loan to the Corleone family. That does not make it right or legit.
      That is what the law is for: if there are unreasonable things happening, the law should clear things up.

      Unfortunately in many countries, the law tends to side with the companies and not the general population.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    4. Re:Credit agencies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I have never had a relationship with Facebook, yet they are collecting data about me. The proof is in the myriad of invitations that I have kept over the years which often correctly guess which of their customers are my friends or relatives.

      Private businesses have no right to collect data about me in the absence of a contract. Period.

    5. Re:Credit agencies by RobinEggs · · Score: 1

      Ultimately, most politicians are either rich or attorneys, and the latter is usually also the former.

      That's not exactly true. A slight majority of people who graduate law school never work as attorneys, and of those who can get work the average pay is $110,000/year. That's a fantastic wage, but it's hardly enough to qualify someone as "rich" in the sense that they're clueless to the demands of everyday life. A (barely) six-figure salary doesn't really place someone in the same social category as influence-peddling multi-millionares who think the world revolves around them.

    6. Re:Credit agencies by bberens · · Score: 1

      If someone has uploaded something to facebook that you have a legitimate copyright for I'm fairly certain they'd take it down after you inform them of it.

      --
      Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
    7. Re:Credit agencies by ffflala · · Score: 1

      I felt exactly the same way for years. It's an incredibly frustrating perspective. There is a different one, but I only reached it after formally studying consumer law.

      Keep in mind these are CREDIT agencies, and what that means. Credit is someone else is agreeing to loan you money, be it revolving (a credit card, for example) or intended for a specific purchase (home, car, etc.) If the friendly corner store owner is willing to let you pay him back next time b/c you forgot your wallet, they're also extending you credit. Banks, CC companies, and that store owner --creditors-- will want to have some way to gauge whether or not you'll actually pay them back.

      The store owner has known you for years, but what about everyone else who doesn't know you at all? They need a way to assess your creditworthiness. When one's business involves extending credit to people (like you), that business need to be able to assess the likelihood of whether or not you'll pay them back as agreed.

      Before credit agencies and credit scores, creditors (mostly banks) used their own changing criteria and investigations to determine whether or not a person was creditworthy. There's a lot to it, but cultural bias proved that creditors greatly, and consistently discriminated on the basis of sex, race, and other factors. (As for the store owners, well they'd just talk to each other, and rat out the local deadbeats. Stiff one merchant in a small, tight town, and good luck getting credit from any other merchant.) Ideally this would be an objective, nondiscriminatory, fair, formulaic approach. That's what the current regime of credit agencies and credit scores is intended to emulate.

      So a credit report is just 7-year account of exactly the kind of information that creditors will want to know about you before they decide whether or not to give you money. While the information they collect is *about* you. It is not yours, any more than the fact that I saw you on the street with Bill the other day is "your" information, and you have some special privileges as to if and how I can share that. Similarly, credit agencies serve as an independent means for creditors to get the scoop on you for people who are trying to figure out if you'll pay as agreed, or if they'll lose money on you. If you didn't pay your credit card bill for three months in a row, it seems fair that any other credit card company (or other creditor) should be able to know about it.

      It's more complex, obviously. Real harm can occur to consumers, particularly from false/inaccurate data. This is why you are able to dispute and add to your own credit report.

    8. Re:Credit agencies by TheRecklessWanderer · · Score: 1

      So you make an agreement with somebody and then you use the law to back out of that agreement? And so you are better than the Corleones how?

      --
      Mean what you say...say what you mean.
  6. Opera Unite! by bigsexyjoe · · Score: 2

    I have recently become an Opera enthusiast. What do people think of using Opera Unite as an alternative to Facebook? You hold all your own data that way.

    1. Re:Opera Unite! by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      Another huge problem is also the fact that you can go offline and suddenly you are gone.

      Why don't they use a web of trust then? Allow all my friends to host a copy of my information, as long as there's no total discontinuity from one time frame to the next you'd always be up to date (and really, have you ever logged into Facebook and found not a single friend online?). You could even encrypt the more sensitive data, where accepting someone's friend request sent them the decryption key. Might get a little unwieldy once the data archives get big enough, but if you did the big initial transfers in the background it seems like it could work.

    2. Re:Opera Unite! by bigsexyjoe · · Score: 1

      Not a bad idea. Kind of ambitious though. Keep in mind that they just aren't as big as google. I agree that the big problem with Opera Unite! is that you have to leave your home computer on 24/7.

    3. Re:Opera Unite! by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      What do people think of using Opera Unite as an alternative to Facebook?

      All the people that I want to keep in contact via facebook to switch to Opera and I'll gladly embrace it. Thing is, I think convincing them to switch to google plus would be simpler, since they wouldn't have to start using a new browser, and I've been unable to get them to switch even to that. So opera unite is worthless to me until then.

  7. dupe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/10/12/226257/facebook-your-personal-data-is-a-trade-secret

  8. That's so utterly mad by ackthpt · · Score: 2

    I'd expect this being stated by one of the senior wizards at Unseen University.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  9. Facebook is ridiculously expensive by gurps_npc · · Score: 1
    The fact that they charge you a ton of personal data in exchange for their minimal services - email, blog, games.

    Most of those things are stuff you can get for free for a lot less information. Probably the worst thing about Facebook is that they aggregate everything together. The whole is more valuable than the parts, yet they don't give you more stuff for that.

    I am not paranoid. I will give out my personal data freely - if I get something valuable in exchange for it. I do it all the time with banks and dating websites.

    The Irish law that forces corporations to give you the data they have on you is a great idea. I wish America had the same law.

    As for exceptions for trade secrets - are they really trade secrets? Did they intentionally mix trade secrets with the data?

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    1. Re:Facebook is ridiculously expensive by bberens · · Score: 1

      "charge you a ton of personal data" -- The aggregation of all that data has lots of value, but the value of any one individual's data on a site like Google/Facebook/Amazon is approximately zero.

      --
      Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
  10. In A Reasonable Country... by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1

    In a reasonable country, Facebook would be a criminal enterprise. At minimum, they have committed theft of your personal information and now claim that it is their to do with whatever this week's posted ToS says that they can.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  11. Re:who fucking cares? by hedwards · · Score: 2

    I don't use FB, I hope you're not suggesting that I have no reason to be concerned about what FB might have on me indirectly.

  12. Sensationalist Much? by RobinEggs · · Score: 1

    There's a big difference between "The law says you can't have it" and "The law says we're only required to give you this much, which we've already done, so tough nuts". Facebook is saying the later (and from the summary the OP apparently understands that), while the former is the title of this story.

    The issue is important enough without blatant link-baiting in the form of titles that imply government restrictions on your access to your own information. Facebook is a marketing corporation masquerading as an open social and political forum, and their privacy policy is a disaster. Isn't that enough to pillory them? Do you have to willfully misquote their statements to imply claims of censorship and government interventions?

  13. Facebook knows all by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

    Facebook knows everything there is to know about you.

    It even knows where you put the keys you lost.

    They won't tell you where your keys are- but they sure do know.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    1. Re:Facebook knows all by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      Facebook knows everything there is to know about you.

      It even knows where you put the keys you lost.

      They won't tell you where your keys are- but they sure do know.

      I wonder if the source the data out to Santa Claus...

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:Facebook knows all by idontgno · · Score: 1

      No, actually, they stumbled into the treasure trove of all that data when Santa signed up for Facebook.

      Now he's not the only one who knows if you've been bad or good. Damn FB game apps leaking all kinds of information back to FB.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    3. Re:Facebook knows all by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Facebook knows everything there is to know about you.

      It even knows where you put the keys you lost.

      They won't tell you where your keys are- but they sure do know.

      What about my missing sock?

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  14. Lies, lies, lies ... by hydrofix · · Score: 1

    At least in my county's (Finland) respective EU legislation there are no such provisions, that would give Facebook the right to hold my my personal data, even if it contains "trade secrets". In contrast, the law specifically notes that all my personal data must be provided to me irrespective of secrecy provisions or Non-Disclosure Agreements (only some law enforcement databases are an exemption from this– business databases definitely are not.)

    If Facebook designed their database so, that it contains trade secrets embedded in my personal data, they failed to consider the law, and have caused upon themselves whatever jeopardy this could result in.

    1. Re:Lies, lies, lies ... by msobkow · · Score: 1

      The law in the EU, Canada, UK, Australia, US, etc. is quite clear about what constitutes "personal data." It does not mean "everything we know about you."

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    2. Re:Lies, lies, lies ... by burning_plastic · · Score: 1

      The UK Data Protection Act can force them to delete any data they have on you even if they won't reveal exactly what it is (as long as they're not the government or someone you owe money to)...

    3. Re:Lies, lies, lies ... by hydrofix · · Score: 1

      I believe you are talking out of your ass. Quoting the Irish legislation in question:

      1. – (1) In this Act, unless context otherwise requires –

      ...

      ‘personal data’ means data relating to a living individual who is or can be identified either from the data or from the data in conjunction with other information that is in, or is likely to come into, the possession of the data controller;

      This pretty much means "everything we know about you." As long as you (a person) can be connected to this data, it is subject to the EU data protection directive.

      AFAIK EU has much stricter data protection legislation than The Land Of The Free, which I as an EU citizen find comforting. I am not that sure about Canada though.

  15. Luckily they are not their own judges by Hentes · · Score: 1

    What the law says will be determined in court. A company telling the law is on their side is really not news.

    1. Re:Luckily they are not their own judges by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      What the law says will be determined in court. A company telling the law is on their side is really not news.

      No kidding. Apple insisted that jailbreaking was against the law until a court slapped them down. Void your warranty, sure ... but not illegal. Facebook is playing the same game: they know that some large number of people will take them at (ahem!) "face" value, and that's sufficient.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  16. I never used it but by Hentes · · Score: 1

    Isn't Unite a cloud service like Turbo?

    1. Re:I never used it but by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      No, it's kinda the opposite. All content is hosted locally, with your browser acting as a server and authoring tool. The only thing that's in the cloud is DNS to resolve your host.

  17. Re:who fucking cares? by causality · · Score: 1

    or to quote the CEO mark zuckerberg, it makes them "dumb fucks"

    Wow. That's the closest thing to a useful, relevant contribution I have ever seen you make. I shall refer to you as "Number 412" to distinguish you from all the other sockpuppet accounts, at least until such time as they follow your example and post something that isn't completely worthless.

    Number 412, you earned it. Yes, you are but one insignificant clone sockpuppet account of many insignificant clone sockpuppet accounts, but you stand out above all the others. You give slight credibility to the idea that the owner of these clone sockpuppet accounts may yet achieve a semblance of mental health.

    Yes yes, why do you cower, you're a worthless feeb, etc etc. Just take a damned compliment.

    --
    It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
  18. Free market solutions by lispbliss · · Score: 1

    I don't really like the idea of more regulations and more potential ways to get sued, but I do like the idea of less spam so how about these steps in this direction:

    -Get rid of the government Post Office. Allow free competition while enforcing property rights (delivery without consent is trespassing/littering). Depending on the interplay of new competition and the Post Office's current capacity to price services correctly maybe the price for these types of mailings goes up and they become less common.
    - Perhaps part of this new competition involves mail delivery services that as a way of getting your service (you having a mail box that allows their company to put things in) they filter this junk out for you.
    - Make it clear under what terms delivery services are allowed to put things in your mailbox, anything else is littering or something. I don't know if you can currently refuse large amounts of junk mail from the USPS, but if more people put this junk in a huge box and left it out and the deliverer was required to pick it back up perhaps that would cut down on this. Make refusing to similar to litter.

    On the landline side, perhaps tech solutions like phones that hook into the data from Report Spam in Google Voice can help there. Or more deregulation in phone service so there are more suppliers that offer blocking spammers as a feature.

  19. Re:who fucking cares? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

    Damn it, Causality. You've gone and made Weyoun 416 jealous now.

  20. Yet another reason to avoid Facebook by mikein08 · · Score: 1

    As if any thinking individual needed another reason ... Facebook is for the mouth-breathing, booger-eating, minimal intelligence no-hopers. Avoid it as you would any predator.

  21. Re:who fucking cares? by schroedingers_hat · · Score: 1

    Oooh, now do me! Should I cower too?