10 ms·

Maybe it's my unenlightened American perspective coming out here, but why is this a big deal? You chose to use the Facebook service, you chose to provide this

by count 15y ago

Maybe it's my unenlightened American perspective coming out here, but why is this a big deal? You chose to use the Facebook service, you chose to provide this information to them, and you chose to agree to their terms of service. Facebook isn't a government agency, it's a private organization that has persuaded people to give it armloads of data about themselves, and uses that for whatever completely legal purposes it so desires. It's not like they are taking out credit card applications or anything on behalf of these users. What is it about this completely voluntary relationship that is so inherently evil? I really don't get the harsh kickbacks and complaints against things like "Facebook keeps records of pokes even if the user 'removes' them". So what? How is that something that is litigation or 'outcry' worthy? How much of this data is just persistent in the system because they operate at a scale where data deletion or removal just cannot feasibly be accomplished[1]? Much like google - 'we dont delete anything'. Why should they legally or otherwise be required to verify something is actually deleted, instead of simply ensuring it's inaccessible in their system? Why is nobody complaining about NTFS or ext3/4 not actually zeroing out the file space when you delete something, and instead just 'marking it deleted' or 'removing the pointer in the inode'? How is that fundamentally any different at all? Please, educate me, because I really don't get it.

OoTheNigerian 15y ago
"You chose to use the Facebook service, you chose to provide this information to them, and you chose to agree to their terms of service." Likewise, Facebook chose to operate under the laws of the various lands in which it operates.
- chc 15y ago
  I'm honestly unclear about this: Does Facebook actually have any operations in the EU, or does it merely not ban Europeans from accessing its servers in America?
  - pyre 15y ago
    It has a headquarters in Ireland. Apparently Ireland is a popular tax haven. Ireland is also part of the EU... Oops!
    - rmc 15y ago
      Ireland also has a lot of high tech companies. If you watch the video you'll see they have several floors of staff, not just a brass plate. It's possible Facebook et al. are in Ireland for more than the tax breaks.
    - bmacauley 15y ago
      Ireland isn't the tax haven, although it has a very low corporate tax rate of 12.5 %. They are in Ireland to channel cash to tax havens, such as Bermuda and the Cayman Islands, using the 'double Irish' and 'Dutch sandwich' tax avoidance techniques Google's Tax Tricks: 'Double Irish' And 'Dutch Sandwich' http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/10/21/130727655/google-s-tax-tricks-double-irish-and-dutch-sandwich http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/10/21/130727655/google-s...
  - estel 15y ago
    Users signing up in Europe will form a contract with Facebook Ireland Limited, who are registered and operate under EU law. It's not just a legal entity either, there's a pretty sizable engineering and support presence.
  - nknight 15y ago
    http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?factsheet http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?factsheet Dublin, Hamburg, London, Madrid, Milan, Paris, Stockholm. Even if they didn't actually have physical offices in Europe, there are any number of situations in which Facebook may end up subjecting itself to some European laws. Consider: * Taking advertising from European companies. * Partnering with European developers on its platform. * Using the services of European companies (datacenters, bandwidth, marketing...). * Employing European employees, whether as ordinary employees or contractors. * Attempting to enforce trademarks or copyrights in Europe. In addition, if they wish European corporations to use Facebook to communicate with their customers, they need to not do anything that would expose those corporations to potential liability under European law. There are a half-billion people in EU territory. They are on average relatively well-educated and wealthy consumers. That'd be one hell of a market to cut yourself off from financially.
fhars 15y ago
No, if they don't abide by the laws, their purposes are not completely legal. Just like you cannot completely voluntarily sell yourself into slavery under US law, there are certain inalienable rights that cannot be given up under european law, and control over your personal data is one of them. That is the point of it.
- count 15y ago
  Semantics here - if they aren't abiding, you are right, it is illegal. But I'm asking more along the lines of 'why' is that illegal. Is that data privacy an inalienable, non-contract-surrendable right? That seems ridiculously draconian.
  - appleflaxen 15y ago
    It seems strange to call a liberal definition of rights "draconian". There must be a better adjective.
    - Jach 15y ago
      I think taking the discussion to rights is just a bad idea in the first place. Stick with what's in the law, and argue morality without appealing to rights.
      - anigbrowl 15y ago
        The rights are in European law. They're called 'fundamental rights' and are quite explicit. EU citizens have a lot of individual constitutional rights that Americans do not. They're fundamental because they can't be signed or bargained away, and the reason for that is to reduce the inventive of firms or governments to employ trickery to that end.
        AppSec 15y ago
        I really wonder how much of that is because the EU is made up of many countries and these countries want to protect their own. It's kind of similar to how the breach disclosure rules are significantly different from state to state. The other thing that I wonder is how much of the US not having the strict laws is due to Corporate Personhood. I honestly don't know, I'm just throwing it out there.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
- dasil003 15y ago
  And part of that education is determining exactly what the privacy implications actually are.
MartinMond 15y ago
It's very easy. All countries (except Somalia) regulate their markets. For example in the US if there are more than 500 investors in your company you are required to disclose certain information (I read about that regarding Facebook: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/01/03/facebook-and-the-500-person-threshold/ http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/01/03/facebook-and-the-500-...) In the EU companies are required to disclose data about individuals to those individuals. In both cases what happened was that policymakers tried to work against a (potential) market failure they (fore)saw.
- VladRussian 15y ago
  >All countries (except Somalia) regulate their markets. if you know anybody who's worked in Somalia, you'd know about regulations there. It is just a little bit faster and less traditional when cease-and-desist is delivered using AK-47, and regulations change frequently as one "General" is replaced by another.
  - MartinMond 15y ago
    True. I totally forgot about that.
AlexMuir 15y ago
You have to look beyond the law to what its purpose is - to prevent companies from exploiting your personal information, and to force them to tell you what data they hold. Facebook are exploiting your browser history, without telling you. And are refusing to even own up to it. I don't believe that 99% of Facebook users would tick a box that said 'Please record every webpage I visit and store it for your own future use. I do not want access to, nor the right to remove, this data.' Voluntary or not, there's a right to at least see the data that anyone holds on you. Note that you don't have the right to remove data. This is EXACTLY why data protection laws are there. At the time they were enacted it was largely credit reference agencies, public bodies and direct marketing businesses which were in the spotlight. Had they been written today they would be aimed firmly at Facebook, Google and Apple.
- count 15y ago
  But if you, as a customer of those websites, agree to them knowing you are there, and they chose to share that with others, what right does the government have to prevent that? Why is this not a 'just don't use the service if you don't like it' deal? Credit bureaus are significantly different - you have literally no choice in that manner; Facebook isn't providing data to be used in that type of decision though. If some secret, 'I cant see it but they show my boss' data existed, and that was used when applying for a job or something, I could understand that perspective. This, however, is no more than a guy standing outside a row of stores, taking notes during the day of what people go in what stores, and how big their bags are when they come out. Is that illegal in Europe as well? Edit because I can't seem to reply to comments below: That's fascinating. If even that sort of behavior is illegal in Europe, it makes the outcry against what Facebook is doing make more sense.
  - tonfa 15y ago
    > Is that illegal in Europe as well? Yes. Usually, you cannot build a database (digital or paper) about people without their permission, and without allowing people to get access to their records, and allowing them to get their records deleted. Then there are exceptions (e.g. you have implicit permission to build a database of the members of an association, or you have a contract with the person and what you record is "adequate"), or cases where you need to get an extra authorization from the data protection authority for example if what you record is sensitive (political affiliations, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, etc.).
Tangurena 15y ago
Those "completely legal purposes" are only "completely legal" in the US. In the US, the owners of the computer own the data about yourself [1]. In Europe, the data protection acts go the opposite: you own the data about yourself. Furthermore, in Europe, data collection about people has to fall under certain legally sanctioned reasons [2]. Notes: 1 - this can cause surprises when companies go bankrupt and the bankruptcy courts allow the sale of the data (about you) to proceed without your knowledge or consent. It is very rare for you to be notified (such as in the current Borders bankruptcy), or the privacy policies of the dearly departed company to be honored by the courts. 2 - Just because you are willing to give the data to me does not necessarily make it legal.
chopsueyar 15y ago
facebook-is-building-shadow-profiles-of-non-users http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/10/18/1429223/facebook-is-building-shadow-profiles-of-non-users http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/10/18/1429223/facebook-is-b...
- RexRollman 15y ago
  And that should be illegal. There's a reason I don't have a Facebook account.
bbq 15y ago
"What is it about this completely voluntary relationship that is so inherently evil?" I'm not going to argue it's inherently evil but, You are right that the service is completely voluntary. However, the opportunity cost associated with not having a Facebook account has been rising by virtue of the network effect and 3rd party services requiring a Facebook account to access functionality. The fear is: as (if) Facebook becomes more and more a part of society, the cost of not having a Facebook account becomes high enough to make it practically compulsory to have a Facebook account. And if at this point Facebook acts as it does now, well then it's time to start worrying. Picking up a hoe and tilling a field is completely voluntary, so why did slaves choose to do so? Because not doing so was too costly.
- fl3tch 15y ago
  Duress is not voluntary. If it's impossible to get by without a Facebook account, then that's just a less violent form of duress. Lots of ostensibly voluntary transactions between free agents are actually quite duressed.
illumen 15y ago
Spying on people is still evil if it is a government institution or a private one. Zuck: They "trust me" Zuck: Dumb fucks People don't choose to be tracked on other websites by facebook. People don't even read the terms service. Most people just want to read what their friends write, and look at pictures of cats.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
VladRussian 15y ago
>Why is nobody complaining about NTFS or ext3/4 not actually zeroing out the file space when you delete something, and instead just 'marking it deleted' or 'removing the pointer in the inode'? you have obviously never dealt with DoD or anybody close to it or even just with a serious enterprise/bank.
- count 15y ago
  Actually, I have. Shredding, NIST, the whole nine. Facebook isn't protecting classified nuclear secrets, or the keys to the financial kingdom, it's protecting pictures of cats and drunk college parties. And outside of a few special places, such as the DoD, NOBODY CARES about the file system issues.
  - grecy 15y ago
    >...it's protecting pictures of cats and drunk college parties While that summary is not incorrect, I think it's worth noting those pictures you mentioned are valued somewhere above $80,000,000,000 (http://venturebeat.com/2011/09/27/facebook-valuation-sharespost/ http://venturebeat.com/2011/09/27/facebook-valuation-sharesp...) Maybe there's more to it than that.
  - VladRussian 15y ago
    What this all information is gathered for? One of main known goals is "personalized shopping experience" in marketing speak. For some people to be presented while shopping with prices 50% higher than they would be otherwise just because analysis of the information gathered about them would show that they would buy at this price would be equivalent to losing the keys to their personal financial kingdom.
  - anigbrowl 15y ago
    drunk college parties the kind that can prevent you from getting that job you want 15 years afterwards? Facebook may be a private company, but would you want them (or anyone) disgorging all their data on you that they've ever had in response to a government subpoena - for a background check or a security clearance, for example?
sek 15y ago
Bullshit, it is not "completely voluntary". When everyone is using a communication service and there is no alternative. They claim to have a billion users. Short it is a monopoly, they have a lot of power and when you start to abuse it, like forcing users to accept your unfair terms of service, the government comes into play. I never heard that Google doesn't remove stuff when you remove them inside your service. They advertise the huge space on Gmail by "never have to delete anything", that is completely different. > Why is nobody complaining about NTFS or ext3/4 not actually zeroing out the file space? I normally don't reply to such a stupid argument, but i have a related video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SCZzgfdTBo#t=3m20s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SCZzgfdTBo#t=3m20s
- Travisism 15y ago
  It is 100% completely voluntary. Nobody is forcing you to use Facebook. It is not even remotely close to the only communication service. I don't personally use Facebook and have no problem leading an active social and business life. Sure, a large portion of my friends use Facebook, but they also make phone calls, send text messages, email (through multiple different services), LinkedIn, Flickr, etc etc etc. So how does Facebook have no alternatives? If you don't like the product, or you don't like the way its run, or you don't like the way it handles your data, or you don't like the color of the log in button, then its simple. Don't use it. As the original poster said, it is a private organization, and therefore you have a choice. This isn't social security, this isn't taxes. I can (and don't) use Facebook, but much to my dismay, I still pay my outrageous taxes. This weeks' Monopoly is last weeks' MySpace when users choose to go elsewhere.
  - sek 15y ago
    You are not using it? This is maybe the reason why you don't understand this. For most people like me it is a tool to communicate to over 150 people and they expect me to have it. With most of them i can't communicate with mail any more. Facebook himself says it's Messaging is replacing Mail for young people, now they have to act responsible about it. It is like a telephone number you give to all your friends and someone says "Hey when you don't like something about it, just don't use it". You are invested in these things, it is not that easy.
mindstab 15y ago
a) Facebook is creating shadow profiles of people who don't use it and definitely in no was agreed to that. b) Same thing with EULA's that go "too far" and other things. Countries make laws to decide what is reasonable. Same with the work force. Thankfully there are things like minimum wage laws that prevent people from getting work for next to no money etc. Sometimes things need regulation. c) Especially with regards to the part about holding onto "deleted data" it means once something is on facebook you can never get rid of it. It has a chance of getting leaked or hacked/stolen or requested by the government etc. Also there are laws about what data can be used about you opt ins and opt outs for people's safety which facebook may be violating
zeteo 15y ago
>I really don't get the harsh kickbacks and complaints against things like "Facebook keeps records of pokes even if the user 'removes' them". So what? How is that something that is litigation or 'outcry' worthy? Under US contract law, misrepresentation is sufficient cause to rescind an otherwise binding contract. The contract users enter into with Facebook is to accept their terms of service in exchange for being provided with a certain service. If the user can make a case that the service was misadvertised, e.g. by promising a "delete poke" functionality that was not, in fact, provided as expected, then this can be construed as a breach of contract on Facebook's part.
- Jach 15y ago
  Misrepresentation is similar to neglect in that it's typically necessary for lawyers to argue and juries to decide. In this actual case, to repeat count's analogy, why aren't filesystem users complaining that their deleted data isn't "really deleted" (ignoring that such FS software is probably a no-warranty thing)? I've had to recover rm'd data a number of times myself. I don't think "deletion" has ever meant an expectation of "completely wipe out any traces of" in the digital world. I wouldn't put it past a lawyer to be able to convince a jury otherwise though, but it'd set a dangerous precedent.
  - pyre 15y ago
    In a filesystem, the data isn't scrubbed but it's marked as space that can be overwritten. While the completely removal doesn't happen at once, it's slated for complete removal at some undetermined time in the future. In the case of Facebook, they are making a conscious decision that they do not want this data to ever disappear. I doubt very much that there are policies to remove data marked as 'deleted' after a set time period, or plans to implement something like that in the future. They keep the data around because it is still useful to them, even though it is no longer useful to the user.
    - 0x12 15y ago
      And besides that, it is not the manufacturer of the filesystem that is in control, but the person that installed it, likely the same person that is deleting the files. For web based services the rules change dramatically, because you are no longer in control of the data. Because the past has shown that companies seem to have a hard time to play nice with the data they store on behalf of their unsuspecting users there now is in some parts of the world a government entity tasked with precisely that: making sure that users right with respect to their data are respected. If you don't like the way your filesystem deletes the data you can always cut up the platters.
anigbrowl 15y ago
Because EU citizens have a legal right to privacy; in the EU, your personal data belongs to you, and this ownership cannot simply be waived contractually. From the EU charter of fundamental rights, which has constitutional force: Protection of personal data 1. Everyone has the right to the protection of personal data concerning him or her. 2. Such data must be processed fairly for specified purposes and on the basis of the consent of the person concerned or some other legitimate basis laid down by law. Everyone has the right of access to data which has been collected concerning him or her, and the right to have it rectified. 3. Compliance with these rules shall be subject to control by an independent authority http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf I wouldn't bet on Facebook in this case. you will see more of this, since most people in the EU speak English and are avid consumers of broadband, but are not especially sympathetic to the American philosophy of contract law.
- Derbasti 15y ago
  This might be a great way to brush up you CV after university (for law students).
  - anigbrowl 15y ago
    I am a law student, as it happens. How do you mean?
    - Derbasti 15y ago
      As far as I can see, there is not much risk involved in asking Facebook/Google/Dropbox/Yahoo/Microsoft/Whatever to give you "your" data, as per European law. Then look at it and see what is wrong with it. Then file a complaint. What can they do? It's the law. Then make the thing public, disclose all your communication with your target, post the story to Hacker News and Reddit, maybe even get picked up by some important blogger or newspaper. Would look good on your resume to fight Google, wouldn't it?
      - anigbrowl 15y ago
ltamake 15y ago
Primary example: the Like button. Even when I'm not logged into Facebook the button tracks where I go. I never checked a box to have the like button shown to me. Also, agreeing to use a website does NOT give the website the ability to break the law. Otherwise, we could have drug-trafficking sites completely in the open with a box saying "By checking this box, you understand that we sell extremely illegal drugs, and that you will not take any action against this site."
- gsmaverick 15y ago
  Don't visit sites that use the Like button, block the Facebook domain. It's not that difficult.
  - 0x12 15y ago
    > Don't visit sites that use the Like button That's nice in theory, but of course you can't know which pages have the 'like' button on it until you hit them.
    - jamesgeck0 15y ago
      Sure. That's why he suggested blocking the Facebook domain. I have a Facebook account that I use regularly, so I block the Like buttons with Ghostery.
      - RexRollman 15y ago
        Your advice is appreciated, but I my opinion, people shouldn't have to install software to avoid being tracked.
        jamesgeck0 15y ago
        I agree. But Facebook isn't the only offender here; 3rd parties are also tracking your movements. The problem won't go away when Facebook relents; users are always going to have to defend themselves.
anthonyb 15y ago
The crux of the issue as far as I see it is that Facebook aren't exactly being open and transparent about the data that they're holding on you, or how it's being used. If you don't know that, there's no tradeoff being made. And in a lot of cases, there's data being gathered about people who haven't opted in. Seriously, read through the list of complaints: Shadow Profiles Facebook is collecting data about people without their knowledge. This information is used to substitute existing profiles and to create profiles of non-users. Messages Messages (incl. Chat-Messages) are stored by Facebook even after the user “deleted” them. This means that all direct communication on Facebook can never be deleted. Data Security In its terms, Facebook says that it does not guarantee any level of data security. Applications Applications of “friends” can access data of the user. There is no guarantee that these applications are following European privacy standards. I mean, really? None of these give you any pause for thought whatsoever?
- AppSec 15y ago
  Messages: This is the implementation issue and one of rights anyway. If I send a message to a friend, what right do I have to delete it from their in-box or sent items if they save a copy of it? The deletion is a view deletion, not a physical deletion. A large number of deletes work this way (at least initially they go to an archive and then are either time removed or can be manually removed). Data Security: Anyone who says your data secure is bluffing. Your data is never secure, and people need to stop thinking it is. It's out there. Backups, in transit, in DB, on file system. There is going to be whole. Think about it. Encrypted backups - they are never updated and eventually that encryption is going to be easy to crack. FB could be taking the answer to the extreme, but it is actually a smart answer. Applications: FB doesn't develop them. It would be similar to MS guaranteeing apps written by third parties. It can't do it. Apple can't even do it. Linux doesn't do it. FB has it's issues. It's constant update of privacy and not letting the user to choose to expose what data they want. But this is no different than any other system thrown out there. FB isn't the only one creating shadow profiles (how many tracking websites are out there that companies use to determine site usage). Do you think they are really being transparent? Don't you think the shadow companies could build a shadow profile if they wanted to? My issues with FB is that when they release new features or alter settings ability they make it the least secure possible. If they are violating the laws, then they need to be reprimanded for it. But this just has the feel of the MS monopoly issue. Where people are only going after them because they are so big when others are out there doing it as well.
earl 15y ago
Your first problem is "completely legal" -- you seem to assume that American law is controlling. Unfortunately, legal is place sensitive. In order to do business in the EU you generally have to comply with their laws. One of the privileges the EU generally grants their citizens is that companies must, on demand, produce all data they store about that person. Why should this be true? Because EU citizens living in democracies want it to be so. If fb doesn't like it they are free to not do business there. Otherwise, they have to comply.
jheriko 15y ago
For one thing you are wrong to assume they are completely legal. Big companies with big legal departments regularly make mistakes... its human nature, but I think with big businesses the problem is exaggerated by the implicit assumption that they must be legal if they are big. Now the fact that they collect this data and people voluntarily agree to it is precisely the evil part. People agree without realising what they are agreeing to. There is a more general problem here which isn't Facebook though - its that EULAs and fine print are given legal weight when nobody reads them and this is common knowledge. Now... to tie this altogether I never realised Facebook would store my deleted messages that might have been in the agreement I "made" with them when I ticked that check box and pressed okay years ago. Now, flagging for deletion is fine, in their case though it costs them expensive storage space - maybe its cheaper than the processor time to delete things - either way its irrelevant because they shouldn't do this because the Data Protection Act says that information should be kept for no longer than is necessary. I don't know if they have any need to comply with UK/EU law to allow accounts for people who live here - I don't think they do, but I would hope US law has something similar...
vacri 15y ago
EULAs are not intended to be properly read. Every $BIGNAME has a lengthy EULA, to the point where it's just a click-through. No reasonable person can be expected to read every tech EULA, let alone understand all its provisions. Even then, whenever EULAs get updated, rare is the company that highlights the change - most expect you to reread and figure out the difference for yourself. You also have no choice but to agree or lose your existing body of work - it's a unilateral license change, not a mutual change of contract terms. The whole "but you voluntarily agreed to their terms!" concept is a canard which disguises how obfuscatory and misdirectional the EULA process is. It's the difference between "consent" and "informed consent", which is significant.
- vacri 15y ago
  example: my favourite EULA to date was one in a Windows OS installer, which weighed in at 3000 words... which you could only read in a box four lines high. Still, it doesn't beat the 'voluntary' license where you can't read the license until you unseal the box, but unsealing the box indicates you agree with the license.
  - Derbasti 15y ago
    As far as I know, those unwrapping-consent EULAs are not legal (at least in Europe). And I seem to remember that some court in some county decided that EULAs in general are not legally binding (to consumers at least) any more since no one can be reasonably expected to read them. What a strange world we live in.
poodougnut 15y ago
Where do you draw the line? ISP's aren't government agencies, either; should we stop going on the internet altogether? Neither are telephone companies. Should we abandon the telephone? And were they government agencies, would the privacy concerns just have dissipated? I think what it boils down to is: what is a right and what is a privilege? Is it that Facebook is a privilege, but my privacy remains my right? Is there anything to 'right' and 'privilege' beyond legal context?
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
mmaro 15y ago
Watch Moxie's "New threats to privacy" from BlackHat 2010 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qzldtKV1PY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qzldtKV1PY Essentially, the problem is that these voluntary relationships become not-so-voluntary as the privacy-compromising tools become more necessary to participate in society.
Mordor 15y ago
Facebook break the law, there's no opt out. Just like they can't opt out of sending you the complete collection of personal information they hold (for a nominal fee). Poor Facebook '-(
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
huhtenberg 15y ago
Through Like button and widgets FB also tracks people who are not their users and never consented to that in any form. Does this sound OK too from your "unenlightened American perspective"? Arguably this lies outside of the complain domain, but it does relate directly to the "not a big deal" stance. I find it *shocking* that people accept it as a perfect norm what would never fly in a physical world. How many business owners wouldn't mind a post office retaining a copy of their every mail? And furthermore using it to better the type of junk mail being sent to the company. Or how many regular folks would be OK with their alumni club installing surveillance cameras in public and private places to track their movement? Still not a big deal, eh? Why do then things change when the very same businesses and people go online? /rant
bambax 15y ago
Although I agree with the basic principle that if you don't like what Facebook does, the best course of action is to not use Facebook, the argument that, in essence, a private company is free to do whatever it wants is absurd. What Facebook is doing is illegal in the EU (or at least, its legality is in dispute). Whether or not you agree with those regulations or think they are absurd is another matter entirely, and quite irrelevant, since you don't make the laws and can't even vote for the people who make them (because you're from a different part of the world).
- alttag 15y ago
  Part of the complaint is that even those who don't use Facebook or opt in to its terms (like me) are still publicly tagged in photos (without my consent) and tracked across the internet (through "like" buttons). So while I agree, simply avoiding Facebook doesn't solve the problem.
orionlogic 15y ago
Here is your education: http://f.cl.ly/items/1m2v3a392M3R0x3V3c2k/Too%20Much%20Information-R.mp3 http://f.cl.ly/items/1m2v3a392M3R0x3V3c2k/Too%20Much%20Infor...
tcarnell 15y ago
Yes, I pretty much agree with this. I am sure many IT companies could technically be in trouble with the Data Protection Act in the UK alone for very similar breaches as Facebook and I am sure many companies would not even be able to provide a CD containing a nice break down of all data about a user (even though they are legally obliged to do so). However, I find it interesting why people get paranoid about the mindless jibber-jabber on facebook compared to the immense and more presice data google stores about individuals... and I imagine getting a CD out of google would be far harder than from facebook (by the looks of things). Google are clever by being 'open' and allowing people to download 'some' of the data they hold about peoeple, but I am sure they would be as reluctant as facebook to make everything accesible.
StrawberryFrog 15y ago
Maybe it's my unenlightened European perspective coming out here, but why is this a big deal? Facebook chose to do business in Europe, Facebook chose to be governed by European law.
dspillett 15y ago
>You chose to use the Facebook service, you chose to provide this information to them, and you chose to agree to their terms of service. Please, educate me, because I really don't get it. This isn't right for two reasons: 1. Under EU law there are certain rights that you can not sign away in a contract. They are yours and you keep them no matter what any bit of paper or click-through license says. This might seem disingenuous, signing to say you'll give them something but not doing so, but the law is actually the other way around: they should not be asking you to sign that right away in the first place. 2. It would seem that facebook are not only tracking people who sign-up. See http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/10/18/1429223/facebook-is-building-shadow-profiles-of-non-users http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/10/18/1429223/facebook-is-b... (or search for "facebook shadow profiles"). This is most definitely against the data protection act in the UK, and they haven't even asked those people to sign away the right to not have that data stored unnecessarily.

by count 15y ago

OoTheNigerian 15y ago

"You chose to use the Facebook service, you chose to provide this information to them, and you chose to agree to their terms of service." Likewise, Facebook chose to operate under the laws of the various lands in which it operates.

chc 15y ago
I'm honestly unclear about this: Does Facebook actually have any operations in the EU, or does it merely not ban Europeans from accessing its servers in America?
- pyre 15y ago
  It has a headquarters in Ireland. Apparently Ireland is a popular tax haven. Ireland is also part of the EU... Oops!
  - rmc 15y ago
    Ireland also has a lot of high tech companies. If you watch the video you'll see they have several floors of staff, not just a brass plate. It's possible Facebook et al. are in Ireland for more than the tax breaks.
  - bmacauley 15y ago
    Ireland isn't the tax haven, although it has a very low corporate tax rate of 12.5 %. They are in Ireland to channel cash to tax havens, such as Bermuda and the Cayman Islands, using the 'double Irish' and 'Dutch sandwich' tax avoidance techniques Google's Tax Tricks: 'Double Irish' And 'Dutch Sandwich' http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/10/21/130727655/google-s-tax-tricks-double-irish-and-dutch-sandwich http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/10/21/130727655/google-s...
- estel 15y ago
  Users signing up in Europe will form a contract with Facebook Ireland Limited, who are registered and operate under EU law. It's not just a legal entity either, there's a pretty sizable engineering and support presence.
- nknight 15y ago
  http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?factsheet http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?factsheet Dublin, Hamburg, London, Madrid, Milan, Paris, Stockholm. Even if they didn't actually have physical offices in Europe, there are any number of situations in which Facebook may end up subjecting itself to some European laws. Consider: * Taking advertising from European companies. * Partnering with European developers on its platform. * Using the services of European companies (datacenters, bandwidth, marketing...). * Employing European employees, whether as ordinary employees or contractors. * Attempting to enforce trademarks or copyrights in Europe. In addition, if they wish European corporations to use Facebook to communicate with their customers, they need to not do anything that would expose those corporations to potential liability under European law. There are a half-billion people in EU territory. They are on average relatively well-educated and wealthy consumers. That'd be one hell of a market to cut yourself off from financially.

fhars 15y ago

No, if they don't abide by the laws, their purposes are not completely legal. Just like you cannot completely voluntarily sell yourself into slavery under US law, there are certain inalienable rights that cannot be given up under european law, and control over your personal data is one of them. That is the point of it.

count 15y ago
Semantics here - if they aren't abiding, you are right, it is illegal. But I'm asking more along the lines of 'why' is that illegal. Is that data privacy an inalienable, non-contract-surrendable right? That seems ridiculously draconian.
- appleflaxen 15y ago
  It seems strange to call a liberal definition of rights "draconian". There must be a better adjective.
  - Jach 15y ago
    I think taking the discussion to rights is just a bad idea in the first place. Stick with what's in the law, and argue morality without appealing to rights.
    - anigbrowl 15y ago
      The rights are in European law. They're called 'fundamental rights' and are quite explicit. EU citizens have a lot of individual constitutional rights that Americans do not. They're fundamental because they can't be signed or bargained away, and the reason for that is to reduce the inventive of firms or governments to employ trickery to that end.
      - AppSec 15y ago
        I really wonder how much of that is because the EU is made up of many countries and these countries want to protect their own. It's kind of similar to how the breach disclosure rules are significantly different from state to state. The other thing that I wonder is how much of the US not having the strict laws is due to Corporate Personhood. I honestly don't know, I'm just throwing it out there.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

dasil003 15y ago
And part of that education is determining exactly what the privacy implications actually are.

MartinMond 15y ago

It's very easy. All countries (except Somalia) regulate their markets. For example in the US if there are more than 500 investors in your company you are required to disclose certain information (I read about that regarding Facebook: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/01/03/facebook-and-the-500-person-threshold/ http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/01/03/facebook-and-the-500-...) In the EU companies are required to disclose data about individuals to those individuals. In both cases what happened was that policymakers tried to work against a (potential) market failure they (fore)saw.

VladRussian 15y ago
>All countries (except Somalia) regulate their markets. if you know anybody who's worked in Somalia, you'd know about regulations there. It is just a little bit faster and less traditional when cease-and-desist is delivered using AK-47, and regulations change frequently as one "General" is replaced by another.
- MartinMond 15y ago
  True. I totally forgot about that.

AlexMuir 15y ago

You have to look beyond the law to what its purpose is - to prevent companies from exploiting your personal information, and to force them to tell you what data they hold. Facebook are exploiting your browser history, without telling you. And are refusing to even own up to it. I don't believe that 99% of Facebook users would tick a box that said 'Please record every webpage I visit and store it for your own future use. I do not want access to, nor the right to remove, this data.' Voluntary or not, there's a right to at least see the data that anyone holds on you. Note that you don't have the right to remove data. This is EXACTLY why data protection laws are there. At the time they were enacted it was largely credit reference agencies, public bodies and direct marketing businesses which were in the spotlight. Had they been written today they would be aimed firmly at Facebook, Google and Apple.

count 15y ago
But if you, as a customer of those websites, agree to them knowing you are there, and they chose to share that with others, what right does the government have to prevent that? Why is this not a 'just don't use the service if you don't like it' deal? Credit bureaus are significantly different - you have literally no choice in that manner; Facebook isn't providing data to be used in that type of decision though. If some secret, 'I cant see it but they show my boss' data existed, and that was used when applying for a job or something, I could understand that perspective. This, however, is no more than a guy standing outside a row of stores, taking notes during the day of what people go in what stores, and how big their bags are when they come out. Is that illegal in Europe as well? Edit because I can't seem to reply to comments below: That's fascinating. If even that sort of behavior is illegal in Europe, it makes the outcry against what Facebook is doing make more sense.
- tonfa 15y ago
  > Is that illegal in Europe as well? Yes. Usually, you cannot build a database (digital or paper) about people without their permission, and without allowing people to get access to their records, and allowing them to get their records deleted. Then there are exceptions (e.g. you have implicit permission to build a database of the members of an association, or you have a contract with the person and what you record is "adequate"), or cases where you need to get an extra authorization from the data protection authority for example if what you record is sensitive (political affiliations, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, etc.).

Tangurena 15y ago

Those "completely legal purposes" are only "completely legal" in the US. In the US, the owners of the computer own the data about yourself [1]. In Europe, the data protection acts go the opposite: you own the data about yourself. Furthermore, in Europe, data collection about people has to fall under certain legally sanctioned reasons [2]. Notes: 1 - this can cause surprises when companies go bankrupt and the bankruptcy courts allow the sale of the data (about you) to proceed without your knowledge or consent. It is very rare for you to be notified (such as in the current Borders bankruptcy), or the privacy policies of the dearly departed company to be honored by the courts. 2 - Just because you are willing to give the data to me does not necessarily make it legal.

chopsueyar 15y ago

facebook-is-building-shadow-profiles-of-non-users http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/10/18/1429223/facebook-is-building-shadow-profiles-of-non-users http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/10/18/1429223/facebook-is-b...

RexRollman 15y ago
And that should be illegal. There's a reason I don't have a Facebook account.

bbq 15y ago

"What is it about this completely voluntary relationship that is so inherently evil?" I'm not going to argue it's inherently evil but, You are right that the service is completely voluntary. However, the opportunity cost associated with not having a Facebook account has been rising by virtue of the network effect and 3rd party services requiring a Facebook account to access functionality. The fear is: as (if) Facebook becomes more and more a part of society, the cost of not having a Facebook account becomes high enough to make it practically compulsory to have a Facebook account. And if at this point Facebook acts as it does now, well then it's time to start worrying. Picking up a hoe and tilling a field is completely voluntary, so why did slaves choose to do so? Because not doing so was too costly.

fl3tch 15y ago
Duress is not voluntary. If it's impossible to get by without a Facebook account, then that's just a less violent form of duress. Lots of ostensibly voluntary transactions between free agents are actually quite duressed.

illumen 15y ago

Spying on people is still evil if it is a government institution or a private one. Zuck: They "trust me" Zuck: Dumb fucks People don't choose to be tracked on other websites by facebook. People don't even read the terms service. Most people just want to read what their friends write, and look at pictures of cats.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

VladRussian 15y ago

>Why is nobody complaining about NTFS or ext3/4 not actually zeroing out the file space when you delete something, and instead just 'marking it deleted' or 'removing the pointer in the inode'? you have obviously never dealt with DoD or anybody close to it or even just with a serious enterprise/bank.

count 15y ago
Actually, I have. Shredding, NIST, the whole nine. Facebook isn't protecting classified nuclear secrets, or the keys to the financial kingdom, it's protecting pictures of cats and drunk college parties. And outside of a few special places, such as the DoD, NOBODY CARES about the file system issues.
- grecy 15y ago
  >...it's protecting pictures of cats and drunk college parties While that summary is not incorrect, I think it's worth noting those pictures you mentioned are valued somewhere above $80,000,000,000 (http://venturebeat.com/2011/09/27/facebook-valuation-sharespost/ http://venturebeat.com/2011/09/27/facebook-valuation-sharesp...) Maybe there's more to it than that.
- VladRussian 15y ago
  What this all information is gathered for? One of main known goals is "personalized shopping experience" in marketing speak. For some people to be presented while shopping with prices 50% higher than they would be otherwise just because analysis of the information gathered about them would show that they would buy at this price would be equivalent to losing the keys to their personal financial kingdom.
- anigbrowl 15y ago
  drunk college parties the kind that can prevent you from getting that job you want 15 years afterwards? Facebook may be a private company, but would you want them (or anyone) disgorging all their data on you that they've ever had in response to a government subpoena - for a background check or a security clearance, for example?

sek 15y ago

Bullshit, it is not "completely voluntary". When everyone is using a communication service and there is no alternative. They claim to have a billion users. Short it is a monopoly, they have a lot of power and when you start to abuse it, like forcing users to accept your unfair terms of service, the government comes into play. I never heard that Google doesn't remove stuff when you remove them inside your service. They advertise the huge space on Gmail by "never have to delete anything", that is completely different. > Why is nobody complaining about NTFS or ext3/4 not actually zeroing out the file space? I normally don't reply to such a stupid argument, but i have a related video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SCZzgfdTBo#t=3m20s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SCZzgfdTBo#t=3m20s

Travisism 15y ago
It is 100% completely voluntary. Nobody is forcing you to use Facebook. It is not even remotely close to the only communication service. I don't personally use Facebook and have no problem leading an active social and business life. Sure, a large portion of my friends use Facebook, but they also make phone calls, send text messages, email (through multiple different services), LinkedIn, Flickr, etc etc etc. So how does Facebook have no alternatives? If you don't like the product, or you don't like the way its run, or you don't like the way it handles your data, or you don't like the color of the log in button, then its simple. Don't use it. As the original poster said, it is a private organization, and therefore you have a choice. This isn't social security, this isn't taxes. I can (and don't) use Facebook, but much to my dismay, I still pay my outrageous taxes. This weeks' Monopoly is last weeks' MySpace when users choose to go elsewhere.
- sek 15y ago
  You are not using it? This is maybe the reason why you don't understand this. For most people like me it is a tool to communicate to over 150 people and they expect me to have it. With most of them i can't communicate with mail any more. Facebook himself says it's Messaging is replacing Mail for young people, now they have to act responsible about it. It is like a telephone number you give to all your friends and someone says "Hey when you don't like something about it, just don't use it". You are invested in these things, it is not that easy.

mindstab 15y ago

a) Facebook is creating shadow profiles of people who don't use it and definitely in no was agreed to that. b) Same thing with EULA's that go "too far" and other things. Countries make laws to decide what is reasonable. Same with the work force. Thankfully there are things like minimum wage laws that prevent people from getting work for next to no money etc. Sometimes things need regulation. c) Especially with regards to the part about holding onto "deleted data" it means once something is on facebook you can never get rid of it. It has a chance of getting leaked or hacked/stolen or requested by the government etc. Also there are laws about what data can be used about you opt ins and opt outs for people's safety which facebook may be violating

zeteo 15y ago

>I really don't get the harsh kickbacks and complaints against things like "Facebook keeps records of pokes even if the user 'removes' them". So what? How is that something that is litigation or 'outcry' worthy? Under US contract law, misrepresentation is sufficient cause to rescind an otherwise binding contract. The contract users enter into with Facebook is to accept their terms of service in exchange for being provided with a certain service. If the user can make a case that the service was misadvertised, e.g. by promising a "delete poke" functionality that was not, in fact, provided as expected, then this can be construed as a breach of contract on Facebook's part.

Jach 15y ago
Misrepresentation is similar to neglect in that it's typically necessary for lawyers to argue and juries to decide. In this actual case, to repeat count's analogy, why aren't filesystem users complaining that their deleted data isn't "really deleted" (ignoring that such FS software is probably a no-warranty thing)? I've had to recover rm'd data a number of times myself. I don't think "deletion" has ever meant an expectation of "completely wipe out any traces of" in the digital world. I wouldn't put it past a lawyer to be able to convince a jury otherwise though, but it'd set a dangerous precedent.
- pyre 15y ago
  In a filesystem, the data isn't scrubbed but it's marked as space that can be overwritten. While the completely removal doesn't happen at once, it's slated for complete removal at some undetermined time in the future. In the case of Facebook, they are making a conscious decision that they do not want this data to ever disappear. I doubt very much that there are policies to remove data marked as 'deleted' after a set time period, or plans to implement something like that in the future. They keep the data around because it is still useful to them, even though it is no longer useful to the user.
  - 0x12 15y ago
    And besides that, it is not the manufacturer of the filesystem that is in control, but the person that installed it, likely the same person that is deleting the files. For web based services the rules change dramatically, because you are no longer in control of the data. Because the past has shown that companies seem to have a hard time to play nice with the data they store on behalf of their unsuspecting users there now is in some parts of the world a government entity tasked with precisely that: making sure that users right with respect to their data are respected. If you don't like the way your filesystem deletes the data you can always cut up the platters.

anigbrowl 15y ago

Because EU citizens have a legal right to privacy; in the EU, your personal data belongs to you, and this ownership cannot simply be waived contractually. From the EU charter of fundamental rights, which has constitutional force: Protection of personal data 1. Everyone has the right to the protection of personal data concerning him or her. 2. Such data must be processed fairly for specified purposes and on the basis of the consent of the person concerned or some other legitimate basis laid down by law. Everyone has the right of access to data which has been collected concerning him or her, and the right to have it rectified. 3. Compliance with these rules shall be subject to control by an independent authority http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf I wouldn't bet on Facebook in this case. you will see more of this, since most people in the EU speak English and are avid consumers of broadband, but are not especially sympathetic to the American philosophy of contract law.

Derbasti 15y ago
This might be a great way to brush up you CV after university (for law students).
- anigbrowl 15y ago
  I am a law student, as it happens. How do you mean?
  - Derbasti 15y ago
    As far as I can see, there is not much risk involved in asking Facebook/Google/Dropbox/Yahoo/Microsoft/Whatever to give you "your" data, as per European law. Then look at it and see what is wrong with it. Then file a complaint. What can they do? It's the law. Then make the thing public, disclose all your communication with your target, post the story to Hacker News and Reddit, maybe even get picked up by some important blogger or newspaper. Would look good on your resume to fight Google, wouldn't it?
    - anigbrowl 15y ago

ltamake 15y ago

Primary example: the Like button. Even when I'm not logged into Facebook the button tracks where I go. I never checked a box to have the like button shown to me. Also, agreeing to use a website does NOT give the website the ability to break the law. Otherwise, we could have drug-trafficking sites completely in the open with a box saying "By checking this box, you understand that we sell extremely illegal drugs, and that you will not take any action against this site."

gsmaverick 15y ago
Don't visit sites that use the Like button, block the Facebook domain. It's not that difficult.
- 0x12 15y ago
  > Don't visit sites that use the Like button That's nice in theory, but of course you can't know which pages have the 'like' button on it until you hit them.
  - jamesgeck0 15y ago
    Sure. That's why he suggested blocking the Facebook domain. I have a Facebook account that I use regularly, so I block the Like buttons with Ghostery.
    - RexRollman 15y ago
      Your advice is appreciated, but I my opinion, people shouldn't have to install software to avoid being tracked.
      - jamesgeck0 15y ago
        I agree. But Facebook isn't the only offender here; 3rd parties are also tracking your movements. The problem won't go away when Facebook relents; users are always going to have to defend themselves.

anthonyb 15y ago

The crux of the issue as far as I see it is that Facebook aren't exactly being open and transparent about the data that they're holding on you, or how it's being used. If you don't know that, there's no tradeoff being made. And in a lot of cases, there's data being gathered about people who haven't opted in. Seriously, read through the list of complaints: Shadow Profiles Facebook is collecting data about people without their knowledge. This information is used to substitute existing profiles and to create profiles of non-users. Messages Messages (incl. Chat-Messages) are stored by Facebook even after the user “deleted” them. This means that all direct communication on Facebook can never be deleted. Data Security In its terms, Facebook says that it does not guarantee any level of data security. Applications Applications of “friends” can access data of the user. There is no guarantee that these applications are following European privacy standards. I mean, really? None of these give you any pause for thought whatsoever?

AppSec 15y ago
Messages: This is the implementation issue and one of rights anyway. If I send a message to a friend, what right do I have to delete it from their in-box or sent items if they save a copy of it? The deletion is a view deletion, not a physical deletion. A large number of deletes work this way (at least initially they go to an archive and then are either time removed or can be manually removed). Data Security: Anyone who says your data secure is bluffing. Your data is never secure, and people need to stop thinking it is. It's out there. Backups, in transit, in DB, on file system. There is going to be whole. Think about it. Encrypted backups - they are never updated and eventually that encryption is going to be easy to crack. FB could be taking the answer to the extreme, but it is actually a smart answer. Applications: FB doesn't develop them. It would be similar to MS guaranteeing apps written by third parties. It can't do it. Apple can't even do it. Linux doesn't do it. FB has it's issues. It's constant update of privacy and not letting the user to choose to expose what data they want. But this is no different than any other system thrown out there. FB isn't the only one creating shadow profiles (how many tracking websites are out there that companies use to determine site usage). Do you think they are really being transparent? Don't you think the shadow companies could build a shadow profile if they wanted to? My issues with FB is that when they release new features or alter settings ability they make it the least secure possible. If they are violating the laws, then they need to be reprimanded for it. But this just has the feel of the MS monopoly issue. Where people are only going after them because they are so big when others are out there doing it as well.

earl 15y ago

Your first problem is "completely legal" -- you seem to assume that American law is controlling. Unfortunately, legal is place sensitive. In order to do business in the EU you generally have to comply with their laws. One of the privileges the EU generally grants their citizens is that companies must, on demand, produce all data they store about that person. Why should this be true? Because EU citizens living in democracies want it to be so. If fb doesn't like it they are free to not do business there. Otherwise, they have to comply.

jheriko 15y ago

For one thing you are wrong to assume they are completely legal. Big companies with big legal departments regularly make mistakes... its human nature, but I think with big businesses the problem is exaggerated by the implicit assumption that they must be legal if they are big. Now the fact that they collect this data and people voluntarily agree to it is precisely the evil part. People agree without realising what they are agreeing to. There is a more general problem here which isn't Facebook though - its that EULAs and fine print are given legal weight when nobody reads them and this is common knowledge. Now... to tie this altogether I never realised Facebook would store my deleted messages that might have been in the agreement I "made" with them when I ticked that check box and pressed okay years ago. Now, flagging for deletion is fine, in their case though it costs them expensive storage space - maybe its cheaper than the processor time to delete things - either way its irrelevant because they shouldn't do this because the Data Protection Act says that information should be kept for no longer than is necessary. I don't know if they have any need to comply with UK/EU law to allow accounts for people who live here - I don't think they do, but I would hope US law has something similar...

vacri 15y ago

EULAs are not intended to be properly read. Every $BIGNAME has a lengthy EULA, to the point where it's just a click-through. No reasonable person can be expected to read every tech EULA, let alone understand all its provisions. Even then, whenever EULAs get updated, rare is the company that highlights the change - most expect you to reread and figure out the difference for yourself. You also have no choice but to agree or lose your existing body of work - it's a unilateral license change, not a mutual change of contract terms. The whole "but you voluntarily agreed to their terms!" concept is a canard which disguises how obfuscatory and misdirectional the EULA process is. It's the difference between "consent" and "informed consent", which is significant.

vacri 15y ago
example: my favourite EULA to date was one in a Windows OS installer, which weighed in at 3000 words... which you could only read in a box four lines high. Still, it doesn't beat the 'voluntary' license where you can't read the license until you unseal the box, but unsealing the box indicates you agree with the license.
- Derbasti 15y ago
  As far as I know, those unwrapping-consent EULAs are not legal (at least in Europe). And I seem to remember that some court in some county decided that EULAs in general are not legally binding (to consumers at least) any more since no one can be reasonably expected to read them. What a strange world we live in.

poodougnut 15y ago

Where do you draw the line? ISP's aren't government agencies, either; should we stop going on the internet altogether? Neither are telephone companies. Should we abandon the telephone? And were they government agencies, would the privacy concerns just have dissipated? I think what it boils down to is: what is a right and what is a privilege? Is it that Facebook is a privilege, but my privacy remains my right? Is there anything to 'right' and 'privilege' beyond legal context?

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

mmaro 15y ago

Watch Moxie's "New threats to privacy" from BlackHat 2010 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qzldtKV1PY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qzldtKV1PY Essentially, the problem is that these voluntary relationships become not-so-voluntary as the privacy-compromising tools become more necessary to participate in society.

Mordor 15y ago

Facebook break the law, there's no opt out. Just like they can't opt out of sending you the complete collection of personal information they hold (for a nominal fee). Poor Facebook '-(

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

huhtenberg 15y ago

Through Like button and widgets FB also tracks people who are not their users and never consented to that in any form. Does this sound OK too from your "unenlightened American perspective"? Arguably this lies outside of the complain domain, but it does relate directly to the "not a big deal" stance. I find it *shocking* that people accept it as a perfect norm what would never fly in a physical world. How many business owners wouldn't mind a post office retaining a copy of their every mail? And furthermore using it to better the type of junk mail being sent to the company. Or how many regular folks would be OK with their alumni club installing surveillance cameras in public and private places to track their movement? Still not a big deal, eh? Why do then things change when the very same businesses and people go online? /rant

bambax 15y ago

Although I agree with the basic principle that if you don't like what Facebook does, the best course of action is to not use Facebook, the argument that, in essence, a private company is free to do whatever it wants is absurd. What Facebook is doing is illegal in the EU (or at least, its legality is in dispute). Whether or not you agree with those regulations or think they are absurd is another matter entirely, and quite irrelevant, since you don't make the laws and can't even vote for the people who make them (because you're from a different part of the world).

alttag 15y ago
Part of the complaint is that even those who don't use Facebook or opt in to its terms (like me) are still publicly tagged in photos (without my consent) and tracked across the internet (through "like" buttons). So while I agree, simply avoiding Facebook doesn't solve the problem.

orionlogic 15y ago

Here is your education: http://f.cl.ly/items/1m2v3a392M3R0x3V3c2k/Too%20Much%20Information-R.mp3 http://f.cl.ly/items/1m2v3a392M3R0x3V3c2k/Too%20Much%20Infor...

tcarnell 15y ago

Yes, I pretty much agree with this. I am sure many IT companies could technically be in trouble with the Data Protection Act in the UK alone for very similar breaches as Facebook and I am sure many companies would not even be able to provide a CD containing a nice break down of all data about a user (even though they are legally obliged to do so). However, I find it interesting why people get paranoid about the mindless jibber-jabber on facebook compared to the immense and more presice data google stores about individuals... and I imagine getting a CD out of google would be far harder than from facebook (by the looks of things). Google are clever by being 'open' and allowing people to download 'some' of the data they hold about peoeple, but I am sure they would be as reluctant as facebook to make everything accesible.

StrawberryFrog 15y ago

Maybe it's my unenlightened European perspective coming out here, but why is this a big deal? Facebook chose to do business in Europe, Facebook chose to be governed by European law.

dspillett 15y ago

>You chose to use the Facebook service, you chose to provide this information to them, and you chose to agree to their terms of service. Please, educate me, because I really don't get it. This isn't right for two reasons: 1. Under EU law there are certain rights that you can not sign away in a contract. They are yours and you keep them no matter what any bit of paper or click-through license says. This might seem disingenuous, signing to say you'll give them something but not doing so, but the law is actually the other way around: they should not be asking you to sign that right away in the first place. 2. It would seem that facebook are not only tracking people who sign-up. See http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/10/18/1429223/facebook-is-building-shadow-profiles-of-non-users http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/10/18/1429223/facebook-is-b... (or search for "facebook shadow profiles"). This is most definitely against the data protection act in the UK, and they haven't even asked those people to sign away the right to not have that data stored unnecessarily.