7 ms·
This is disingenuous. If Alice wrote on Bob's wall, it should be a part of both Alice's and Bob's takeout. Similarly, if I am tagged in a photo, it should be a
by mcny 7y ago
This is disingenuous.
If Alice wrote on Bob's wall, it should be a part of both Alice's and Bob's takeout. Similarly, if I am tagged in a photo, it should be a part of my takeout. Imagine if my email provider (Google Gmail) said you can only takeout the emails in your sent folder.
In fact, I'd argue if Alice has made their contact information (email, phone number, physical address) visible to Bob, it should be a part of Bob's takeout. Including Alice's location history (provided Alice shared it with Bob) would probably be pushing it a little but only because it becomes difficult to argue for people with whom too many people share data with but anything that Bob is explicitly and manually tagged and is visible to Bob on Facebook in should definitely be a part of Bob's download.
Facebook can't have it both ways: you can't make it easy (by default) to share and still use the data as a moat.
- marcus_holmes 7y agoas basch said, that's not how copyright works in photography. If you're tagged in a photo as a subject of that photo, it is not your photo, and if you take a copy of it then that's a breach of copyright. It belongs to the photographer. Our expectations don't match with actual law here.
- LegitShady 7y agoUsing the photo commercially may be a breach of copyright. Having a copy I do not think is and likely Facebook could fix that I'm their tos.
- marcus_holmes 7y agoThe entire music industry fought global legal battles for decades claiming that making a copy of something that someone else holds copyright on, even for your own personal use, is a crime. I don't think you can waive copyright with a ToS, either. I could be wrong, though.
- icebraining 7y agoYou don't "waive" the copyright, you just give Facebook a worldwide, royalty-free, irrevocable, etc, etc license to do whatever they need with the photo, including adding it to the data download archives of the persons pictured.
- p49k 7y agoWe’re not talking about copyright, though - we’re taking about privacy rights, and - even if we discard compelling fair use arguments - everyone who uses Facebook gives them a license to distribute the photos they upload to the site to others for various reasons. Copyright law doesn’t really come into play, and of course much data involved here isn’t even copyrightable.
- basch 7y agoits an analogy, im not bringing up copyright law as something that impacts the situation, its an illustration of a similar concept. Some countries treat photography as copyright as the priority, others let privacy law take precedent.
- klingonopera 7y agoI think this is a country- and thus law-specific case. In Germany, AFAIK, if the picture has less than five people on it, it is considered a photo of you, and both you and the photographer have a copyright on it. EDIT: Maybe not the entire copyright, but you definitely have a say as the subject in such a photo, including barring it from the public against the photographer's wishes, if you please.
- marcus_holmes 7y agothis is true, and we obviously have Model Release Forms for a reason, but the point remains that just because it's a photo of you, it's not your photo.
- mcny 7y agoIf you explicitly and manually tag me in a photo and it shows up on my profile, it should be a part of my takeout. I don’t understand what you’re having difficulty understanding. I never said use machine learning to comb through all photos ever uploaded to Facebook and add them to my takeout. I don’t think what I’m saying is controversial at all.
- jefftk 7y ago> I'd argue if Alice has made their contact information (email, phone number, physical address) visible to Bob, it should be a part of Bob's takeout. What about Alice's friends-only posts? What about the comments on those posts? What about Charlie's posts, where Charlie is a friend of Alice and has set their posts to "visible to friends-of-friends"?
- basch 7y ago"Heres a list of everyone with your phone number in their phone" would be a weird twist on transparency, privacy, and disclosure.
- arminiusreturns 7y agoIf facebook has it, why shouldn't we?
- basch 7y agoI am not saying this is the same thing. But. Should you be able to ask for every photo ever taken of you? Lets say someone in public takes a photo, its their private work, copywritten, and never distributed to the public. Youre in the background. Can you request a full copy if their image?
- toufka 7y agoHonestly, that would be pretty cool. And, in an interesting version of this world, a company like Facebook could have enabled such a self-awareness. And done it with the intent of allowing people that kind of self-growth. It's odd that the imagined objective data-collection about one's self that many people dream about actually exists (and many could use for self-improvement), and it is instead only available to those wishing to extort us. And that that kind of socialized agreement that all may contribute to each others' growth is now impossible, but not for technical, but for weird policy/economic reasons. I'd love to be able to purchase every photo ever taken of me at Facebook's market info rate - what, $200?
- creato 7y agoEven if one were to agree that this would be reasonable, would you say facebook would be liable if the tool failed in some cases? And how do you enforce that, one way or the other? Algorithms that recognize people in photos aren't (and probably never will be) 100% accurate, especially in this context (people in the background of photos will often be partially obscured, poorly lit, maybe really small/far away, etc.).
- michaelt 7y agoIf Alice is moving her phone book between Apple and Google, we do want her data export to include Bob's phone number. Anything else would be absurd. If Alice is sharing her facebook profile with an online personality survey, we don't want her data export to include Bob's phone number. That would be a huge invasion of Bob's privacy. Alas, it's impossible to know what Alice is planning to do with the data when she downloads it.
- tylerl 7y agoFollowing your metaphor, what about email between Bob and Carol which mentions Alice explicitly, using her name and email address? Should Alice be entitled to a copy of that private message between Bob and Carol? Does information become yours if it is about you, even if you aren't a participant in it's creation or distribution? It's easy to argue that advertising distribution lists are private conversations between FB and advertisers, and hard to argue that they're not. Saying I'm entitled to a copy of that conversation if I'm mentioned becomes a hard position to take.
- edoceo 7y agoObviously not. The cases are where parties are explicitly included: my timeline, tagged in photos, etc. Mention someone, w/o direct linkage doesn't include that communique in their dataset.
- basch 7y agoThe posted story is about exporting the list of parties who UPLOADED your contact info to facebook. An advertiser who bought a list, and presses import.
- kurthr 7y agoNo, because you weren’t party to the conversation. This seems like a pretty rugged rather than slippery slope.
- Ajedi32 7y agoSo to be clear, you agree that advertising distribution lists shouldn't be included in the takeout request? GP's point was that you're not a party to the conversation in that situation either.
- mcny 7y agoI don’t think I’m asking for much here. If I have access to it on Facebook on my profile, in my message box, or somehow associated with my profile, it should be a part of my takeout is all I’m saying. How is this controversial?
- twitch-chat 7y agoWhat you want is an egregious breach of privacy. Just because you have access to Alice's personal data does not mean it belongs to you. In fact, I'd argue that EU would not be happy if the data people downloaded included information about anyone but them and only them.
- sneak 7y agoWhat if you licensed or bought it from someone who legitimately obtained it from Alice? There are lots of ways it can become your own data, if you subscribe to the idea that data can be owned.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- throwaway55554 7y ago> If Alice wrote on Bob's wall, it should be a part of both Alice's and Bob's takeout. What about copyright?
- smichel17 7y agoCovered under Facebook's ToS
- freepor 7y agoEmail is not a good analogue because it doesn’t have the concept of revocation or editing. Facebook posts can always be deleted... and Alice can always delete her post from your wall...