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?

[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.

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).

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.