Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Facebook Settles With FTC, Admits Privacy Violations

Posted by Soulskill on from the present-your-wrist-for-a-slapping dept.

Animats writes "Facebook has agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it deceived consumers by telling them they could keep their information on Facebook private, and then repeatedly allowing it to be shared and made public. The settlement is soft on Facebook; there are no fines or criminal penalties. According to the FTC, in December 2009, Facebook 'changed its website so certain information that users may have designated as private – such as their Friends List – was made public. Facebook didn't warn users that this change was coming, or get their approval in advance.' Among the other complaints (PDF), 'Facebook represented that third-party apps that users' installed would have access only to user information that they needed to operate. In fact, the apps could access nearly all of users' personal data – data the apps didn't need.'" The settlement demands that Facebook avoid any new deceptive privacy claims, and also that users must give explicit permission for changes to be made to their privacy preferences. Facebook will be audited every two years for the next two decades to make sure they're holding up their end of the settlement. In a lengthy statement on Facebook's blog, Mark Zuckerberg acknowledged that they'd made mistakes.

16 of 138 comments (clear)

  1. Mixed Feelings. by forkfail · · Score: 5, Insightful

    On the one hand, good on the FTC. Especially for the followup reviews.

    On the other hand, this once again proves that it's far easier to just do something contractually and ethically questionable yet massively profitable and wiggle out of the consequences later (especially if you've the money for a squadron of lawyers) than to do things above the board from the get go.

    --
    Check your premises.
    1. Re:Mixed Feelings. by dr.banes · · Score: 4, Insightful

      On the one hand, good on the FTC. Especially for the followup reviews.

      On the other hand, this once again proves that it's far easier to just do something contractually and ethically questionable yet massively profitable and wiggle out of the consequences later (especially if you've the money for a squadron of lawyers) than to do things above the board from the get go.

      Yeah, better to ask for forgiveness than ask for permission.

    2. Re:Mixed Feelings. by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Too big to fail eh? What you do is fine them. Hit them in the pocket book. That's what you are suppose to do.

      FYI Facebook is not based in Ireland. That's for accounting practices.

    3. Re:Mixed Feelings. by msauve · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Facebook is based in Ireland"

      Huh? No, they're not, although they could certainly have a subsidiary incorporated there.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    4. Re:Mixed Feelings. by Chewbacon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Agreed. The damage is done and irreversible and Facebook is getting off pretty much free for it. All of those companies that had accessed that data is sitting on top of it now and can do whatever they would like with it.

      --
      Chewbacon
      The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
    5. Re:Mixed Feelings. by hedwards · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The difference is that Google sells views and Facebook sells information. Both are potentially worrying, but of the two I'd be a lot more concerned about Facebook.

    6. Re:Mixed Feelings. by cffrost · · Score: 4, Funny

      [...] Facebook has become part of life for almost every human on earth[.]

      For those of us who take a longer view, Facebook has become a part of our HOSTS file(s).

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
  2. Mistakes? by jazman_777 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Mark Zuckerberg acknowledged that they'd made mistakes.

    Because they don't believe they did wrong. They really believe they made mistakes, the first of which was "get caught."

    --
    Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
  3. Re:Facebook is evil and parasitic by forkfail · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Probably never.

    Why? Because they fill a niche, and do it well. And the thing about social networks is this: whoever is the biggest is probably going to stay the biggest at this point. It's no good joining a social network that none of your friends use. And to some folks, Facebook is the internet.

    Not saying this is a good thing, or right - just my observations on the way that things are.

    --
    Check your premises.
  4. Wouldn't trust Zuckerberg to watch my dog by dtjohnson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I wouldn't trust Zuckerberg to watch my dog and yet 100s of millions of people entrust his company with their most personal information. Odd, that.

  5. An interesting penalty... by homsar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Facebook broke the law. As punishment, Facebook has to promise not to do it again, and be monitored to make sure it keeps its promise. I guess Facebook is only seven years old, and since companies have the same rights as people (apparently), I guess it makes sense they are given punishment befitting a person of that age.

  6. Re:Facebook is evil and parasitic by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is pointing out one of the many problems with social network BS: The word "friend" has been hijacked and turned into "somebody you kinda sorta know from somewhere" rather than "somebody you choose to spend significant amounts of time with but isn't a family member".

    Nobody has 300 real friends, I promise you that much.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  7. What kind of time scale does the FTC use? by Zadaz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Every two years for two decades!?!?!??!

    I bet all my private information that Facebook won't be around in 20 years. And 2 years is enough time to cause a ridiculous amount of damage when you have a billion users.

    I bet they're quaking in their repentant boots.

  8. Re:Facebook is stupid and bannal by IGnatius+T+Foobar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's even simpler than that. There will soon be a generation of kids who wouldn't be caught dead on the same social network as their parents. Eventually, we will get to a point where Facebook will be for old people, just like email is considered by the under-25 set now.

    Now you kids get off my lawn!

    --
    Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
  9. Re:FTC is doing a good job by icebike · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Not only did they slap Facebook [on the back] for privacy violations, but also Google

    They're getting another two years to put things in order before the first audit, then they get to do a half-year-screw-everyone, half-year-clean-up-the-mess between year-long audits.

    Further: The settlement is soft on Facebook; there are no fines or criminal penalties.

    So in addition to getting away Scott free, they have two years to clean up their act, by which time the opt-ins will be in place but so disguised and muted that users will fall into the same trap.

    Facebook users don't care about privacy, the whole point of Facebook is and always has been a meat market method of self promotion. Facebook knows this and will simply make it so limiting to do anything except opt-in that most users will simply check the Opt-In-to-Everything box.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  10. Yeah! Take that! by Sir+Realist · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now do better next time, or we'll politely ask you to do better next time again!