4 ms·

Zuck's Official Comment: On Facebook, People Own and Control Their Information

45 points by jasonlbaptiste 18y ago

jonmc12 18y ago
"When a person shares something like a message with a friend, two copies of that information are created—one in the person's sent messages box and the other in their friend's inbox. Even if the person deactivates their account, their friend still has a copy of that message." Ok, but that does not mean that Facebook actually has to retain ownership of your information if you leave the site, right? The friend you sent this message to could have ownership of this piece of information - if Facebook wanted to structure it this way. That is actually how email works. It seems like a pretty weakly structured argument. Maybe the most meaningful and straightforward part of the article: "we're going to make some missteps"
- scotth 18y ago
  Furthermore, this kind of statement is a bit vague. What other ways is information duplicated in a way that is reasonable to Facebook? The example they provide would be seen as acceptable to most, but what if general site operations require duplication and retention that is not?
- ojbyrne 18y ago
  So I guess technically they should have some kind of a reference count. Once you and all your friends with which you shared a specific image or message or whatever leaves, they should let all rights lapse. That would be the right way to do it, at least.
  - tolmasky 18y ago
    I think a mark and sweep algorithm on the information would be a better strategy
  - mechanical_fish 18y ago
    So I guess technically they should have... a reference count. Okay, wise guys: Show me the algorithm that finds the snippet of ojbyrne's writing that I've just copied, above, and deletes it when ojbyrne deletes the original message. ;) Now show me the version which correctly identifies my quote as a pretty obvious case of fair use, and therefore allows me to keep the quote even when the original is deleted. No hacker would expect you to be able to do such a thing reliably. But the juries in copyright lawsuits are not composed of hackers.
    - tolmasky 18y ago
      git could do it ;)
- mechanical_fish 18y ago
  The friend you sent this message to could have ownership of this piece of information - if Facebook wanted to structure it this way. That is actually how email works. This is untrue. An email written by you is your copyrighted work, from the moment you type it. Just because it's in my inbox doesn't mean you've relinquished your copyright. Technically, if I republish your email to me, you can sue me. [1] The other day someone was polite enough to ask for permission to republish one of my comments here on HN on their blog. That surprised me for a second, but it shouldn't have. They were doing the correct, legal thing -- my comment was (and is) copyrighted by me; unless they were reproducing it for a fair use -- as I just did, when I quoted your post for the purpose of commenting on it -- they needed my permission to reuse it. Now imagine how useful Facebook would be if every user had to seek a copyright release from every other user anytime they forwarded a message, or cropped a fellow user's photo, or reposted something, lest Facebook later be sued for contributory or vicarious infringement. [2] That's why Facebook has now decided to just have users agree to a waiver in advance. --- [1] Not that you would necessarily win such a lawsuit. There are such things as "implied licenses": If you send email to a public mailing list there's an implication that you mean for it to be public: http://www.piercelaw.edu/thomasfield/ipbasics/copyright-on-the-internet.php http://www.piercelaw.edu/thomasfield/ipbasics/copyright-on-t... There are also many fair uses. But, especially if I use your writing for some sort of commercial purpose -- as Facebook does, constantly -- you can take me to court and hassle me, because the copyright is still yours. As the Creative Commons website will tell you at great length, under current US copyright law it's actually really hard to throw away the inherent copyright that you hold in your own work, even if you want to throw it away. [2] http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise14.html http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise14.html
  - anewaccountname 18y ago
    So when I click reply to an email, and preserves your entire text at the bottom of my reply, I'm guilty of copyright infringement? How about when I forward the school newsletter to the person the school meant to send it to?
    - mechanical_fish 18y ago
tokenadult 18y ago
"One of the questions about our new terms of use is whether Facebook can use this information forever. When a person shares something like a message with a friend, two copies of that information are created--one in the person's sent messages box and the other in their friend's inbox. Even if the person deactivates their account, their friend still has a copy of that message. We think this is the right way for Facebook to work, and it is consistent with how other services like email work. One of the reasons we updated our terms was to make this more clear." So Zuckerberg's claim is that the change in the ToS just reflects the reality that information is stored with you and with your friends when you share information with your friends. Backing up his statement is that the new ToS http://www.facebook.com/terms.php?ref=pf http://www.facebook.com/terms.php?ref=pf still refers to "(i) Post on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof SUBJECT ONLY TO YOUR PRIVACY SETTINGS" (emphasis added). Maybe this isn't such a big worry after all, although I was alarmed at first by the blog posts announcing this ToS change.
- unalone 18y ago
  Blogs like sensationalism - it's how they make money. They're not different from any other site. First there was the whole newsfeed=evil deal, then there was the Facebook CIA thing, now it's the TOS. Anything that'll get a lot of paranoid people riled up.
vaksel 18y ago
well why should another person get to keep your information when you are no longer using the site? Its just an excuse for FB to keep the data, because not having the missing comments etc won't be noticed anyways.
- ivey 18y ago
  Say you post a picture of me, and I like it and use it for my profile picture. Then you leave Facebook. Now I have no profile picture. Just the first example that popped into my head.
  - pclark 18y ago
    it isn't your photo to use, though.
    - redrobot5050 18y ago
      You're right. Its Facebook's picture.
Harkins 18y ago
"Our philosophy is that people own their information and control who they share it with." A philosophy is warm fuzzies, but the contract that is the TOS is what matters.
- ryan-allen 18y ago
  If you've never worked with lawyers on crafting a new TOS for a new kind of service, it can be easy to misconstrue the legal jargon to imply evil intentions. But likely it's just that they've identified where they need to be clear about what they can and can't do with the information you upload and share. I haven't read the TOS thoroughly, and IANAL, but what Zuck says sounds perfectly reasonable as far as I can tell. They identified a particular nuance of their service (i.e. the fact that once you share something with people, they need to be able to display it for ever to whom you've shared it with) and need realised they need to cover themselves legally against it. It strikes me as proactive and sensible arse covering in what is a hyper-litigious society. If you've a problem with the TOS I believe it to be a problem with the unfortunate legal wrangling, that large companies face to protect themselves, not with some evil intention of FaceBook.
  - Harkins 18y ago
    I'm not trying to impute evil motives to Facebook and I understand why they're doing this. I'm just pointing out that blog posts about philosophies are trumped by contracts and it's ridiculous for Zuckerberg to expect anyone to take his words seriously.
    - CalmQuiet 18y ago
      I take his words seriously: that their philosophy is to preserve contributor ownership. But Zuck may not always be in charge (isn't completely now, for that matter). So his words ought not to be taken legally: i.e., they offer no protection to Facebookers from corporate decisions.
    - plesn 18y ago
      Exactly. Even if their current intent is good, they are stating something that can potentially be evil for their customers, and only that counts for lawyers. The argument is: imagine they have financial difficulties and that Dogbert buys them to exploit our data...
iamdave 18y ago
If there were ever a time when we needed Lawrence Lessig to step up to the plate and go "Chill the fuck out, I got this", it's right now.
- neilk 18y ago
  If there were ever a time when we needed Lawrence Lessig to step up to the plate Are your legs broken or something? The man does a lot, and as he sometimes points out, very few people are also stepping up to that plate with him.
Dauntless 18y ago
We are all pink and fluffy here so you have nothing to worry about, just relax and forget about it...
TheNational22 18y ago
All i want to say really is slippery slope. I never hoped on the Facebook thing, even though I get that email spam from people I know who are on it every now and then. My main gripe was you could never actually delete your account, and now the business reports on the founders sister showing data mining, and now the change of the TOS. They are bleeding money they don't have just to keep the lights on. People may enjoy it, but even in a digital world, I prefer a modicum of privacy.
natmaster 18y ago
If they just need this for inbox messages, why don't they just expressly list that as the exception. I would be fine with that.

"When a person shares something like a message with a friend, two copies of that information are created—one in the person's sent messages box and the other in their friend's inbox. Even if the person deactivates their account, their friend still has a copy of that message." Ok, but that does not mean that Facebook actually has to retain ownership of your information if you leave the site, right? The friend you sent this message to could have ownership of this piece of information - if Facebook wanted to structure it this way. That is actually how email works. It seems like a pretty weakly structured argument. Maybe the most meaningful and straightforward part of the article: "we're going to make some missteps"

scotth 18y ago
Furthermore, this kind of statement is a bit vague. What other ways is information duplicated in a way that is reasonable to Facebook? The example they provide would be seen as acceptable to most, but what if general site operations require duplication and retention that is not?
ojbyrne 18y ago
So I guess technically they should have some kind of a reference count. Once you and all your friends with which you shared a specific image or message or whatever leaves, they should let all rights lapse. That would be the right way to do it, at least.
- tolmasky 18y ago
  I think a mark and sweep algorithm on the information would be a better strategy
- mechanical_fish 18y ago
  So I guess technically they should have... a reference count. Okay, wise guys: Show me the algorithm that finds the snippet of ojbyrne's writing that I've just copied, above, and deletes it when ojbyrne deletes the original message. ;) Now show me the version which correctly identifies my quote as a pretty obvious case of fair use, and therefore allows me to keep the quote even when the original is deleted. No hacker would expect you to be able to do such a thing reliably. But the juries in copyright lawsuits are not composed of hackers.
  - tolmasky 18y ago
    git could do it ;)
mechanical_fish 18y ago
The friend you sent this message to could have ownership of this piece of information - if Facebook wanted to structure it this way. That is actually how email works. This is untrue. An email written by you is your copyrighted work, from the moment you type it. Just because it's in my inbox doesn't mean you've relinquished your copyright. Technically, if I republish your email to me, you can sue me. [1] The other day someone was polite enough to ask for permission to republish one of my comments here on HN on their blog. That surprised me for a second, but it shouldn't have. They were doing the correct, legal thing -- my comment was (and is) copyrighted by me; unless they were reproducing it for a fair use -- as I just did, when I quoted your post for the purpose of commenting on it -- they needed my permission to reuse it. Now imagine how useful Facebook would be if every user had to seek a copyright release from every other user anytime they forwarded a message, or cropped a fellow user's photo, or reposted something, lest Facebook later be sued for contributory or vicarious infringement. [2] That's why Facebook has now decided to just have users agree to a waiver in advance. --- [1] Not that you would necessarily win such a lawsuit. There are such things as "implied licenses": If you send email to a public mailing list there's an implication that you mean for it to be public: http://www.piercelaw.edu/thomasfield/ipbasics/copyright-on-the-internet.php http://www.piercelaw.edu/thomasfield/ipbasics/copyright-on-t... There are also many fair uses. But, especially if I use your writing for some sort of commercial purpose -- as Facebook does, constantly -- you can take me to court and hassle me, because the copyright is still yours. As the Creative Commons website will tell you at great length, under current US copyright law it's actually really hard to throw away the inherent copyright that you hold in your own work, even if you want to throw it away. [2] http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise14.html http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise14.html
- anewaccountname 18y ago
  So when I click reply to an email, and preserves your entire text at the bottom of my reply, I'm guilty of copyright infringement? How about when I forward the school newsletter to the person the school meant to send it to?
  - mechanical_fish 18y ago

tokenadult 18y ago

"One of the questions about our new terms of use is whether Facebook can use this information forever. When a person shares something like a message with a friend, two copies of that information are created--one in the person's sent messages box and the other in their friend's inbox. Even if the person deactivates their account, their friend still has a copy of that message. We think this is the right way for Facebook to work, and it is consistent with how other services like email work. One of the reasons we updated our terms was to make this more clear." So Zuckerberg's claim is that the change in the ToS just reflects the reality that information is stored with you and with your friends when you share information with your friends. Backing up his statement is that the new ToS http://www.facebook.com/terms.php?ref=pf http://www.facebook.com/terms.php?ref=pf still refers to "(i) Post on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof SUBJECT ONLY TO YOUR PRIVACY SETTINGS" (emphasis added). Maybe this isn't such a big worry after all, although I was alarmed at first by the blog posts announcing this ToS change.

unalone 18y ago
Blogs like sensationalism - it's how they make money. They're not different from any other site. First there was the whole newsfeed=evil deal, then there was the Facebook CIA thing, now it's the TOS. Anything that'll get a lot of paranoid people riled up.

vaksel 18y ago

well why should another person get to keep your information when you are no longer using the site? Its just an excuse for FB to keep the data, because not having the missing comments etc won't be noticed anyways.

ivey 18y ago
Say you post a picture of me, and I like it and use it for my profile picture. Then you leave Facebook. Now I have no profile picture. Just the first example that popped into my head.
- pclark 18y ago
  it isn't your photo to use, though.
  - redrobot5050 18y ago
    You're right. Its Facebook's picture.

Harkins 18y ago

"Our philosophy is that people own their information and control who they share it with." A philosophy is warm fuzzies, but the contract that is the TOS is what matters.

ryan-allen 18y ago
If you've never worked with lawyers on crafting a new TOS for a new kind of service, it can be easy to misconstrue the legal jargon to imply evil intentions. But likely it's just that they've identified where they need to be clear about what they can and can't do with the information you upload and share. I haven't read the TOS thoroughly, and IANAL, but what Zuck says sounds perfectly reasonable as far as I can tell. They identified a particular nuance of their service (i.e. the fact that once you share something with people, they need to be able to display it for ever to whom you've shared it with) and need realised they need to cover themselves legally against it. It strikes me as proactive and sensible arse covering in what is a hyper-litigious society. If you've a problem with the TOS I believe it to be a problem with the unfortunate legal wrangling, that large companies face to protect themselves, not with some evil intention of FaceBook.
- Harkins 18y ago
  I'm not trying to impute evil motives to Facebook and I understand why they're doing this. I'm just pointing out that blog posts about philosophies are trumped by contracts and it's ridiculous for Zuckerberg to expect anyone to take his words seriously.
  - CalmQuiet 18y ago
    I take his words seriously: that their philosophy is to preserve contributor ownership. But Zuck may not always be in charge (isn't completely now, for that matter). So his words ought not to be taken legally: i.e., they offer no protection to Facebookers from corporate decisions.
  - plesn 18y ago
    Exactly. Even if their current intent is good, they are stating something that can potentially be evil for their customers, and only that counts for lawyers. The argument is: imagine they have financial difficulties and that Dogbert buys them to exploit our data...

iamdave 18y ago

If there were ever a time when we needed Lawrence Lessig to step up to the plate and go "Chill the fuck out, I got this", it's right now.

neilk 18y ago
If there were ever a time when we needed Lawrence Lessig to step up to the plate Are your legs broken or something? The man does a lot, and as he sometimes points out, very few people are also stepping up to that plate with him.

Dauntless 18y ago

We are all pink and fluffy here so you have nothing to worry about, just relax and forget about it...

TheNational22 18y ago

All i want to say really is slippery slope. I never hoped on the Facebook thing, even though I get that email spam from people I know who are on it every now and then. My main gripe was you could never actually delete your account, and now the business reports on the founders sister showing data mining, and now the change of the TOS. They are bleeding money they don't have just to keep the lights on. People may enjoy it, but even in a digital world, I prefer a modicum of privacy.

natmaster 18y ago

If they just need this for inbox messages, why don't they just expressly list that as the exception. I would be fine with that.