Coming Your Way... Less Intrusive Facebook Data Policies?

ainandil writes "Facebook may have to alter its data use policy now that grassrooters have driven enough complaints about the company's proposed data usage policy to trigger a user vote on the matter. 'Facebook's proposed changes to its data use policy include new explanations of its data deletion practices as well as the controls that users have over the sharing of information with third-party applications. However, 47,824 users commented on the plans with many posting opposition to the planned new terms and instead calling for the chance to vote on the "demands" outlined by Europe-v-Facebook.' Does this mean the days of the man-in-the-middle attack as social media are numbered?"

Comments

and whats the risk for facebook?

[allo]

Lets say, i publish something under these terms, then they change them again. of course they are not allowed to use the old material under the new terms without my consent, but i would assume they do it anyway. 99,99% of all people will not notice, the rest will not sue. And if i would like to sue them for doing so, i do not think there will be a good chance to win against a big corporation like facebook.
So, as long as they try to cover it for most of us with new terms and implied consent, there will be never enough users going to court to stop them from changing their mind every other time.

Re:and whats the risk for facebook?

[dontmakemethink]

Works for any plutocracy - hold elections, people think they are represented.

Re:and whats the risk for facebook?

[SuricouRaven]

Unless the old terms included a clause stating that they may change the terms in future and that your acceptance of the new terms is implied by your continued use of the service. It's a standard clause.

Re:and whats the risk for facebook?

[LordLucless]

I imagine the old data would probably be grandfathered in by the new agreement, so that everything is consistent. Given how often Facebook changes its security policy, to do otherwise would be a maintenance nightmare.

Re:and whats the risk for facebook?

[houghi]

I do not think there will be a good chance to win against a big corporation like [...]

So the problem lies not with Facebook. It lies with the legal system and thus with the politicians that uphold that system. And those are voted for.

So vote for a party that wants to change radically and have the country for the people, by the people. OK, you will be called a Communist or worse. But that is what it would take.

Re:and whats the risk for facebook?

[allo]

the problem is, people accept looooooong contracts for websites, which they do not even read. And those who read them, do not fully understand all implications. And you have no option to make a counter-offer, like strike out some paragraphs, make handwritten amendments or something like this.

But just as i said, i suppose Facebook does much "no one will ever know we're doing it, and if somebody finds out we write it into the fineprint and have the retroactive approval".

The Problem with data hogs like facebook is not what you know, what they are doing, but what you do not know, until its too late. You do not get a bad feeling, while they are abusing your data, you will only know it, when they are done with it and you feel the consequences, but then there is no way back. Thats the whole problem with networks where most of the data processing happens in background. you have no idea what they are doing.

Re:and whats the risk for facebook?

[AmiMoJo]

This is why the EU should write a set of standard clauses web sites can use and not allow anything else. It would save a lot of legal arguing over agreements too.

Wow, Slashdot is officially useless/

[outsider007]

Until ./ develop a fire army to defend against the chinese water army, this shit will be completely unusable.

Like buttons

[game kid]

Expect absolutely nothing more than We The People-style "binding" action if things even get that far. This is Facebook--they're not the judge or the jury, they are the criminal.

That said, I'd love for the third-to-last point in the proposal to be approved, for this to get Like buttons to finally be neutered (i.e. wiped off the net, or turned into non-tracking thingers, or something like that). Then I'd only block Facebook with (e.g.) avast or AdBlock instead of at the h...is that guy that rambles on and on about that file around...no?--what? Oh, you said "Don't know"? Ah. Anyway...the file with the names and number thingies! Yeah, at that level.

Does not compute

[Anonymous Coward]

Facebook's stock is nosediving. And since it is now a public company the stockholders will be demanding to see profits.

Why would they shoot themselves in the foot with these data policies? It isn't as if their current policies have caused a mass exodus. And there really isn't any major competition on the horizon.

I'm guessing this is just smoke and mirrors.

Re:Does not compute

[ThatsMyNick]

Even though he has majority of voting rights, as part the IPO, he has agreed to uphold the "Statement of Rights and Responsibilities". If this statement specifically mentions a specific right or makes a certain promise, he cannot overrule it, despite holding majority of the rights.
 
  In this case, they have specifically mentioned that if "More than 30 per cent of all active registered users as of the date of the notice" vote in favour of something, it is binding and Zukerberg cannot overrule (he can try to work around, stall it etc, but not directly overrule it).

Re:Does not compute

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

In practice that means getting ~250 million people to vote. Good luck with that.

In addition, the vote is not on user-provided alternatives. Instead, "you will be provided alternatives". So the folks at "our-policy.org" are basically participating in a nice exercise in mental masturbation.

Not gonna happen.

[Anonymous Coward]

No way 30% of all "active" users are going to vote, unless they are made to by Facebook (the party that has most to lose)

comparison

[StripedCow]

When I send a text-message to a bunch of friends using my mobile phone via my telco, the telco is certainly not allowed to inspect the contents of the message, let alone to share it directly or indirectly with 3rd parties, such as advertisers.

Now in many ways, facebook is similar to a telco. On facebook I'm also sending messages to other people, only usually these messages are sent to more than one person, but the group of people is still restricted (to my friends).I think we may rightfully ask why facebook and other social media companies are able to give themselves the right to share and sell contentual data that is targeted at a restricted group of people.

In fact, I think there should be a law that states that any data send through a communications facilitator (telco or social media company or otherwise) that is directed to a RESTRICTED group of people, should be treated as confidential.

Re:comparison

[Anonymous Coward]

why facebook and other social media companies are able to give themselves the right to share and sell contentual data that is targeted at a restricted group of people

Because you agreed that it was alright for them to do that. Therefore, they do.

Personally, I don't think it's alright for them to do that, so I did not agree, and thus, do not use their service in any way, including loading their "like" buttons from other sites. And you know what? I still seem perfectly able to communicate with friends and family online, because facebook is not the internet, and as shocking as this is, there are many other ways to communicate online, ranging from private 1:1 communication to broadcasting information to the whole world.

If you're going to support a company doing X, don't turn around and complain that they do X. They do it exactly because of people like YOU. You are the problem. You chose to support a service whose entire *business model* is to violate your privacy and sell your personal data. You asked for it, and you got it.

Re:comparison

[StripedCow]

Because you agreed that it was alright for them to do that. Therefore, they do.

Sure. But people need to be protected against themselves, not just for themselves but for society as a whole. To understand this, consider the following.

If there was a supermarket that sold bread at $0.01, but you only could get one if you punched yourself in the face and put the video on youtube, then you can bet that there would be people that would do that.

Then consider that these supermarkets gain so many clients that "regular" supermarkets become a niche, increasing the price of "normal" bread.

The analogy stops here, but in the case of social media we could take it a step further: imagine that people who punch themselves for a loaf of bread are not allowed to talk to people who don't, or communication is obstructed in some way. Now certainly we can say that something is wrong, perhaps not at the level of the individual, but at the level of society.

The point is that communication is so important that we don't want it to be taken hostage by companies that effectively turn people into "information-prostitutes".

Re:comparison

[Tastecicles]

You tell that to those who were arrested following a series of BBM messages - BBM is supposed to be encrypted! Those messages were intercepted straight off the RIM servers!

See, when there's something like that set up (BBM, Skype, PGP), heavy encryption that the public can use, you'll notice that it's nowhere near military grade encryption which is practically unbreakable. Those seed algorithms that make it into the "wild", so to speak, are those algorithms which the security services have been supplied with a skeleton key. It won't take them long to break the encryption because they don't even have to try, unlike the civilian services (eg police) who have to use bruteforce techniques and burn thousands of P90-years to break one 256-bit AES key. Triple trouble if the drive is encrypted on a triple cascade.

By the way, in the UK at least, GCHQ run realtime monitoring of BBM and other SMS networks, and log realtime tracking data of each and every cellphone in use - with data freely supplied to MI5 by the carriers under the authority of the Home Office.

Here's the difference...

[epp_b]

You pay your phone service provider $X per month for the use of their network. Your telco has little reason to inspect your data, they're already making money from everyone's monthly bills (that being said, don't give them any ideas).

You pay Facebook with your privacy and, at this point, no one would be willing to pay for it with actual money. Such a law would surely be Facebook's doom, and that's all anyone would take away from it. Would you want to be the congressman who killed Facebook?

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. I detest the way Facebook operates; it's underhanded, dishonest and creepy.

There needs to be a new model, but you're not paying with money or privacy, what else is there?

Is something forgotten here?

[Tastecicles]

We have one freedom left to us: the freedom to choose.

We can choose to accept the terms that come with using a service such as Facebook, with the understanding that they operate for profit and they can use our data to achieve that end. Or, we can choose not to use Facebook and deprive them and their shareholders of that revenue - which in all fairness, is a pittance when counted individually; there are idiots who will click on every ad and buy everything that's shoved in front of them, and that collective revenue potential is what makes Facebook worth more than the global wheat industry.

CHOICE. It is our last remaining personal freedom. USE IT OR LOSE IT.