Facebook’s Users Ask Who Owns Information
Update (2009/02/18): Facebook has bowed to pressure and retracted the changes until they can decide on new language.
Flashback: Facebook ‘violates privacy laws’
Brian Stelter, New York Times
February 16, 2009
Reacting to an online swell of suspicion about changes to Facebook’s terms of service, the company’s chief executive moved to reassure users on Monday that the users, not the Web site, “own and control their information.”
The online exchanges reflected the uneasy and evolving balance between sharing information and retaining control over that information on the Internet. The subject arose when a consumer advocate’s blog shined an unflattering light onto the pages of legal language that many users accept without reading when they use a Web site.
The pages, called terms of service, generally outline appropriate conduct and grant a license to companies to store users’ data. Unknown to many users, the terms frequently give broad power to Web site operators.
This month, when Facebook updated its terms, it deleted a provision that said users could remove their content at any time, at which time the license would expire. Further, it added new language that said Facebook would retain users’ content and licenses after an account was terminated.
Mark Zuckerberg, the chief executive of Facebook, said in a blog post on Monday that the philosophy “that people own their information and control who they share it with has remained constant.” Despite the complaints, he did not indicate the language would be revised.
The changes in the terms of service had gone mostly unnoticed until Sunday, when the blog Consumerist cited them and interpreted them to mean that “anything you upload to Facebook can be used by Facebook in any way they deem fit, forever, no matter what you do later.”
Given the widespread popularity of Facebook – by some measurements the most popular social network with 175 million active users worldwide – that claim attracted attention immediately.
The blog post by Consumerist, part of the advocacy group Consumers Union, received more than 300,000 views. Users created Facebook groups to oppose the changes. To some of the thousands who commented online, the changes meant: “Facebook owns you.”
Facebook moved swiftly to say it was not claiming to own the material that users upload. It said the terms had been updated to better reflect user behavior – for instance, to acknowledge that when a user deletes an account, any comments the user had posted on a page remain visible.
“We certainly did not – and did not intend – to create any new right or interest for Facebook in users’ data by issuing the new terms,” said Barry Schnitt, a Facebook spokesman.
Greg Lastowka, an associate professor at the Rutgers School of Law who is writing a book on Internet law, said Facebook’s language was not unusual. “Most Web sites today offer terms of service that are designed to protect and further the interests of the company writing the terms, and most people simply agree to terms without reading them.”
For Facebook, the ability to store users’ data and use their names and images for commercial purposes is important as it seeks to make more money from the virtual interactions of friends.
But balancing the desire for sharing with the need for control remains a challenge for Facebook as it turns five years old this month. “We’re at an interesting point in the development of the open online world where these issues are being worked out,” Mr. Zuckerberg wrote.
Amid the evolution, at least a few members are showing their uneasiness about the stance that Facebook is taking.
Some members, including Sasha Frere-Jones, the pop critic and staff writer for The New Yorker, said they had deleted their accounts to show their opposition to the new terms.
“Zuckerberg’s response to the protest is just the modern version of ‘Ignore the fine print, ma’am, just sign here,’ ” Mr. Frere-Jones wrote in an e-mail message. “Why would anyone trust a company with his or her personal information, especially when that company’s explicit legal language claims eternal rights to exploit that information, and there is good reason to expect that they will?”
Source | See Also under Internet: Do We Need a New Internet? | New law to give police access to online exchanges | Chinese Learn Limits of Online Freedom as the Filter Tightens | Britain unveils plans for nationalized internet service | Google plans to make PCs history | EU Police set to step up warrantless hacking of home PCs | Defense Contractors See $$$ in Cyber Security | UK Culture secretary wants international age restrictions for web | Protests in Australia over proposal to block Web sites | Latest Round of Closed-Door ACTA Copyright Negotiations Wrap Up | China restarts online crackdown | CRTC Internet regulation proposals take shape | Cyberbullying verdict turns rule-breakers into criminals | Felony hacking precedent not set in case of Myspace cyberbully | Myspace terms of use could become fulcrum for destruction of online anonymity in precedent setting case | Bell can squeeze downloads, CRTC rules | Australia to Implement Mandatory Internet Censorship | Microsoft patents web moderator robots, forbidden phrases to be memory-holed | CRTC to consider Internet regulation, invites public comment | RCMP to helm a Canadian “cyber-security strategy” | Is an Internet tax coming? | Italian Judge: Blogs are Illegal | Digital rights groups sue for access to secret ACTA treaty | Berners-Lee W3C Consortium to ‘Authorize’ Website Content? | Digital issues deserve spot in election campaign | Critics waging a cyber offensive to fight copyright changes | Law Professor tells tech conference: plans to shut down Internet already on deck | Bell continues throttling Internet, proposes bandwidth caps for resellers | Rogers Looks For New Ways To Annoy Customers, Hijacks Failed DNS Lookups | MySpace signs up to OpenID scheme | Vint Cerf blasts ISPs for choking off internet infrastructure | Bell’s internet throttling illegal, Google says | Canadian Industry Minister lies about Canadian DMCA on national radio, then hangs up | The Canadian DMCA: Check the Fine Print | Government ready to drop copyright bomb | Transparency needed on ACTA | Net neutrality bill hits House of Commons | Revamped copyright law targets electronic devices | New Attempt to Align Canada’s Copyright Act with USA Coming Soon | CRTC revisits Internet oversight | Bell accused of privacy invasion | Canadian DMCA To Be Introduced Tomorrow Morning?
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:33 am
[...] New Canadian law to give police access to online exchanges | Facebook’s Users Ask Who Owns Information | US military targets social nets | UK Security services want personal data from sites like [...]
April 11th, 2009 at 10:41 am
[...] begin trial despite house opposition | Time to regulate online content, cultural groups tell CRTC | Facebook’s Users Ask Who Owns Information | Do We Need a New Internet? | New law to give police access to online exchanges | Chinese Learn [...]
June 1st, 2009 at 2:57 pm
[...] begin trial despite house opposition | Time to regulate online content, cultural groups tell CRTC | Facebook’s Users Ask Who Owns Information | Do We Need a New Internet? | New law to give police access to online exchanges | Chinese Learn [...]
June 1st, 2009 at 4:21 pm
[...] begin trial despite house opposition | Time to regulate online content, cultural groups tell CRTC | Facebook’s Users Ask Who Owns Information | Do We Need a New Internet? | New law to give police access to online exchanges | Chinese Learn [...]
July 2nd, 2009 at 2:54 pm
[...] begin trial despite house opposition | Time to regulate online content, cultural groups tell CRTC | Facebook’s Users Ask Who Owns Information | Do We Need a New Internet? | New law to give police access to online exchanges | Chinese Learn [...]
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:53 pm
[...] begin trial despite house opposition | Time to regulate online content, cultural groups tell CRTC | Facebook’s Users Ask Who Owns Information | Do We Need a New Internet? | New law to give police access to online exchanges | Chinese Learn [...]
July 7th, 2009 at 10:37 am
[...] begin trial despite house opposition | Time to regulate online content, cultural groups tell CRTC | Facebook’s Users Ask Who Owns Information | Do We Need a New Internet? | New law to give police access to online exchanges | Chinese Learn [...]
July 16th, 2009 at 10:53 am
[...] Facebook’s Users Ask Who Owns Information | UK Security services want personal data from sites like Facebook | MI6 seeks recruits on Facebook [...]
September 11th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
[...] Facebook violates privacy law: watchdog | Facebook’s Users Ask Who Owns Information | UK Security services want personal data from sites like Facebook | MI6 seeks recruits on Facebook [...]
October 24th, 2009 at 7:53 am
[...] begin trial despite house opposition | Time to regulate online content, cultural groups tell CRTC | Facebook’s Users Ask Who Owns Information | Do We Need a New Internet? | New law to give police access to online exchanges | Chinese Learn [...]
March 22nd, 2010 at 12:22 pm
[...] begin trial despite house opposition | Time to regulate online content, cultural groups tell CRTC | Facebook’s Users Ask Who Owns Information | Do We Need a New Internet? | New law to give police access to online exchanges | Chinese Learn [...]