Comments on: Facebook Privacy Controls Change & EPIC’s FTC Complaint

By: Center for Financial Privacy and Human Rights » Facebook Privacy Debate

Center for Financial Privacy and Human Rights » Facebook Privacy Debate — Mon, 07 Nov 2011 05:43:45 +0000

[...] Foundation took issue with the complaint EPIC organized (and several other groups signed on) in a post on the Technology Liberation Front. He argued that “while ‘privacy advocacy’ [...]

By: Raid recovery

Raid recovery — Mon, 31 May 2010 08:48:51 +0000

It's stubbornness over its privacy policy might turn out to be Facebook's undoing

By: rashmi23w

rashmi23w — Mon, 31 May 2010 03:48:51 +0000

It's stubbornness over its privacy policy might turn out to be Facebook's undoing

By: Ratu Ani

Ratu Ani — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 16:34:40 +0000

ratuani@ymail.com

By: Ratu Ani

Ratu Ani — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 16:25:24 +0000

privacy

By: setan

setan — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 16:24:15 +0000

facebook

By: Ratu Ani

Ratu Ani — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 11:34:40 +0000

ratuani@ymail.com

By: Ratu Ani

Ratu Ani — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 11:25:24 +0000

privacy

By: setan

setan — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 11:24:15 +0000

facebook

By: smithjame

smithjame — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 06:05:49 +0000

I dont really see any security issues with the
face book, because it depends on us whether
we are disclosing our personal details.
cheap pets for sale

By: Jim Harper

Jim Harper — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 04:45:54 +0000

There used to be a guy named Tim Lee who wrote on this blog. He would have said exactly that. What happened to that guy?

By: Tim Lee

Tim Lee — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 04:22:08 +0000

But I don't see any justification for the FTC to require Facebook to completely overhaul its privacy policies.

And I don't see anything in EPIC's request demanding that they do so. Making privacy policies "clearer and more comprehensible" may just mean re-drafting the privacy policy to make sure that it's written in plain English and is consistent with Facebook's existing practices. And "meaningful control" doesn't imply an increase in granularity. Right now Facebook doesn't give me any way, granular or otherwise, to suppress my picture or my friend graph.

Am I going to endorse everything EPIC would like the FTC to do to Facebook? Probably not. But I think it's important for libertarians to acknowledge the rare case when the privacy zealots actually have a good point. To defend what Facebook has done here as (for example) "the gold standard of consumer choice and control" is ridiculous. It's fine to nitpick about the details of EPIC's proposals, but I would have like to see a TLF post acknowledging the obvious: that Facebook screwed up and needs to make amends, and that this is precisely the kind of case that government should get involved in: fraud and contract enforcement.

By: Ryan Radia

Ryan Radia — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 23:20:19 +0000

It's 2) and 3) that are problematic. EPIC is using this alleged transgression as an excuse to force Facebook to significantly overhaul its privacy capabilities. It seems that in EPIC's view, it is fundamentally wrong for online services to allow users to post sensitive info without also allowing them to decide precisely how and when that info gets disclosed or used. This level of granularity might be nice, and some users would certainly appreciate it, but it's not something that government should dictate, right? If you're not comfortable with the fact that Facebook uses your sensitive data to generate ads (without actually passing along your sensitive data to advertisers) then don't put up sensitive data in the first place. Facebook is a free service and putting sensitive data on it entails certain compromises. As long as users know (or can easily find out) what those compromises are, there's no problem.

We're totally in agreement that if Facebook engaged in fraud or deceptive practices, it deserves to be punished. Perhaps it would be reasonable to require Facebook to revert to its prior privacy policy, or to compensate users whose friends' lists were made public without their permission. But I don't see any justification for the FTC to require Facebook to completely overhaul its privacy policies simply because some privacy-sensitive users want a free lunch, so to speak.

By: Tim Lee

Tim Lee — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 19:03:28 +0000

I'm not sure where you see them demanding more granular privacy controls. EPIC is advocating:

(1) Restoring the option for users to opt out of public sharing of data,

(2) Making its data collection practices clearer and more comprehensible, and

(3) Give users "meaningful control" over the sharing of personal information.

These seem like pretty mild remedies for the harm Facebook has already done. And they don't say anything about how granular the controls are--the issue is whether users have control over how their information is shared.

Now, if going forward Facebook wants to give users opt-in opportunities to make more information public, that's great. Likewise, it's fine if they want to require new users to make information public as a condition of using Facebook. But it's not acceptable for Facebook to disclose existing users' private information without permission.

By: WAYNE

WAYNE — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:39:07 +0000

Okay Braden, if that is your name, before I get really angry with you and turn into the Hulk, I would ask you to join this group on Facebook “Facebook users unite for a user-friendly Fb” and see what EVERYBODY IS COMPLAINING ABOUT! You seem to have a REAL NARROW MIND about all these privacy concerns that everyone is talking about. And after you see what all the users beef is against the new changes and if you still think that EPIC and all the others are still wrong, then you my friend are even dumber then you look.

By: Ryan Radia

Ryan Radia — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:30:34 +0000

Tim, if Facebook violated its privacy policy (btw, is it even clear that it did?) then you're absolutely right that government has a role to play. But surely you'd agree that EPIC et al go too far in calling for government to force Facebook to give users more granular privacy controls? Going forward, Facebook has made it clear that your name, location, friends lists, etc. are public, and I see nothing wrong with that (except of course to the extent that Facebook may have violated existing users' privacy settings).

By: Tim Lee

Tim Lee — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:12:35 +0000

Berin,

When I signed up for Facebook, they made certain representations to me about what information would be shared, and what level of control I would have over that information. Then Facebook decided to unilaterally disclose some of the information it had previously indicated would be private, without my consent. So I'm not actually "capable of packing my bags and walking if I don’t like the deal I'm being offered." My private information has been disclosed without my consent. It may have been spidered by third parties before I realized what had happened.

Personally, I agree with you that the information being disclosed by default (friend networks, interests) is relatively innocuous. But the point is that it's not up to either you or Facebook to decide which information is sensitive--that decision belongs to individual users. And there are some users with very real concerns. People with relatives in Iran, say. Or women with abuses exes who might use the revealed friends' graph to track them down. Or gay people who haven't come out to their families or co-workers, but whose website selections might out them.

This isn't an issue of government micro-managing Facebook. It's about government ensuring that Facebook tells the truth and keeps its promises to users. Seems pretty libertarian to me.

By: Larry

Larry — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:06:36 +0000

It all comes down to the roll of the dice of what the users ultimately decide what is in their best interest in this matter. Many experts seem out of touch with many user's true comprehension of all this. I know from seeing many friends and family members unable to fathom it might not be just their name public of any concern, its the ability to harvest other information and piece together more intelligence on a persons profile then what appears simply on the surface. There are future exposures like Google Goggle and facial recognition that could make it possible for any weirdo on the street with a cell phone camera to track you down via Facebook via the info public there. Technology people are proficient enough to know what to cover. Are the grandmothers on Facebook able to? One person's ignorance of the protections can bleed over to others exposures. I just think if Facebook had absolute certainty that users really wanted to share information publicly, they would simply give ALL control. The fact that they eliminated the total privacy control makes me believe they don't really think, most people want the exposure Facebook wants them to have. I don't think it is really an option for a high school kid to not be on Facebook at this point. Are their parents that are not on Facebook aware of the potential ramifications in college or job applications in the future due to a tagged photo someone else posted of a stupid night?

By: bradencox

bradencox — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 16:29:45 +0000

EPIC, CDD, CFA and their ilk deserve to lose credibility with this complaint. They are rapidly becoming the PETA's of the privacy world, pulling publicity stunts (though FTC complaints aren't as whacko as saying that forcing kids to eat meat is akin to child abuse!) but lacking real substance and evidence of harm. This complaint is just another vehicle for these groups to rehash tired lines of rhetoric.

What Facebook did was the gold standard of consumer choice and control, yet they are still lambasted. Users were prompted to revisit their privacy settings. Facebook made some recommended changes based on where it sees its service going. Users (like me) could change these if they wanted.

Forcing Facebook or any other online site to maintain original settings into perpetuity is information lock-in and an innovation killer. These sites will experiment with how users publish and share information. If they go too far, their customers will leave--which is the best check on privacy compared to any law or regulation.