Scobleizer: User data ownership on Facebook and why it doesn’t matter
Aaron B. Hockley
· 10 months ago
Actually, not all terms of service are as bad as Facebook's. If you look at Flickr's terms, it simply states that Yahoo can use your content on the site, and specifically notes that they will display advertising on the site as well. It doesn't make a claim that they can resell your content (like Facebook does). Facebook isn't alone in their "we can do anything we want" license, but there are MANY services (Flickr, WordPress.com, Blogger, Blip, SmugMug, etc) that have perfectly reasonable license terms that don't allow the company to use content without restriction.
I'm glad to see that mainstream media picked up on this story, since I blogged about it on February 9th and will be presenting a talk about it at Ignite Portland on Thursday.
Michael O'Neill
· 10 months ago
It makes me sad that there will be no original professional content using Facebook as a platform. I was considering using it for a base for my webcomic, but that idea is scrapped.
optionshiftk
· 10 months ago
Robert, what about the professional photographers, and other content creators who want to share their work, but still maintain the rights? Should they just silo all their content on their own servers? That seems kind of retroactive. It's not prudent to be nonchalant about a major issue like this.
jamesbmarshall
· 10 months ago
Great article, I couldn't agree more. The issue of what happens to your data once it is on these services came up in a lecture once. Services are quick to take your data, but not so quick in making it easy to get back.
I wrote about this myself yesterday on my blog!
LJ Jones
· 10 months ago
I think we have all known all along that by uploading content we were giving them certain license to it. I think the issue people are having here is that the change to the TOS seemed a little covert and Facebook did not use the transparency that is so often talked about. Not that they intended to deceive but they didn't make any effort to let anyone know what they were doing. Allowing people to find out about a change in company policy through a a third party blogger just opens the door for miss communication, hurt feelings and backlash.
Yaniv Golan
· 10 months ago
Robert,
At the risk of shooting my own foot, I for one would love stronger - much stronger - regulations on what companies can and cannot do with user accounts and user data, as well as an external "appeal" entity.
You read the TOS, and you know what you're signing up for. I don't think it's reasonable to expect everyone to be as savvy though.
Robert Accettura
· 10 months ago
One could say the same for when you started complaining about Facebooks 5000 friend limit. Why is this a big deal? Why do you feel you should be entitled to more. It's their service.
That said, I still don't use facebook and have no plans to start. I like controlling my information and having email archives that extend as far back as I want. Not to mention anyone can contact me, even if their company blocks facebook (since very few outlaw email).
I don't like that a company can shut me down for no reason at all. At least with email their is competition. I can also move my email (thanks to having a domain).
I won't use a service in a way I can't afford to loose unless I either have backups, other options.
Even my twitter feed is backed up to my personal database. So if twitter goes under, I still have a record of my content. Still thinking of a way to harvest tinyurl.com links for future use should that service go under.
If you have no control over your data, it's your fault, not a companies. Thanks to many companies out there who are very good about making data portable (WordPress, even Google is very good).
Julien Tartarin
· 10 months ago
I wouldn't call Facebook users "customers". They are "users", the service they use is free and provided without any warranty.
Facebook customers are advertisers, and only advertisers since everything else is free. And they are treated better (for example, support response time is faster when it concerns Ads). But it's normal.
As a user, nobody should expect anything from a free service: it's all bonus !
Wim Hollebrandse
· 10 months ago
The reason it doesn't matter is because these terms aren't legally binding just because Facebook puts them in their ToS agreement. Microsoft could put in their ToS agreement for your first born to be spoon fed with all sorts of MS crapware until they're 12 years old, before transferring ownership of said being to Bill Gates himself. Doesn't make it legally binding, now does it?
Robert Scoble
· 10 months ago
A professional photographer who wants to keep control will either only upload low resolution versions or will put a watermark on top of the image or both. That is the ONLY way to make sure you keep control. By the way, legally the author or content creator ALWAYS has copyrights. But defending those online is pretty difficult sometimes.
Hans Peter Brondmo
· 10 months ago
I agree with the practical reality of the situation as you summarize it in your post. But I strongly disagree with the "doesn't matter" premise.
The real issue here is about data ownership. Or rather the total lack thereof. Our personal information is a very valuable asset. Lots of different interests are vying for control of it. Anybody who gets their hands on it can claim ownership. Yet as individuals we have no rights.
We wouldn't feel right if anyone who could get hold of it could grab a chunk of our intellectual, financial or property assets. We've got laws that protect us from that happening. Yet none in the personal information asset world. That's the real issue here. Not whether FB stores two copies of our messages on their servers.
If you're dumb enough to put real and/or personal info up on a website that you have no control over, or post hi-res images anywhere without watermarking them, then you get what you're asking for.
Kelly
· 10 months ago
It's ridiculous to hear all this complaining. Bottom line is DON'T LIKE IT? DON'T USE IT! I can't believe how many people are starting groups on Facebook to complain about Facebook's TOS.
Yea the possibilities of what FB can do with such data can be scary, but have they done anything yet? Has Facebook ever done anything harmful to its users with this type of information? Yes, there was the whole Beacon thing when it first came out, but FB realized the mistake and pulled the program.
Bill Romanos
· 10 months ago
I agree with Robert Scoble.
I am an attorney who in the past has drafted Terms of Service and Privacy Policies. It is unfortunate, but whenever you post anything on the web (including Facebook), you should assume there could be a security or other failure and all your material could end up public.
Terms of Service and Privacy Policies do not - unfortunately - provide much recourse or protection to the user. In fact many of these terms and policies are written essentially to protect the company making them and not the user. I hope that this changes in the future, but even if it did, there could be a security failure and your posts and materials could end up on the Internet for all to see and use and you would have little recourse - if any.
It would be interesting to see if user communities ever develop a "union" and essentially demand certain policies and terms. I wonder why this has not happened although I understand why organized collective action is difficult. If this were to occur, perhaps led by privacy or internet advocates, it may be possible to demand and receive more protection. Just a thought.
People should take the time to read Terms of Service and Privacy Policies on the services they use. They will find that many - if not most - are not there to protect the user and thus the user will be more cognizant of the type of information they post and make choices based on this.
Bottom line: Assume everything is public and in the public domain when you post anything in any forum - whether secure or not - whether shielded by privacy controls or not. Security is not fool-proof or hacker-proof. If you let this guide you, you will not have a problem in the future if things go wrong.
Analyse site
· 10 months ago
I don't like the platform on Facebook.
Matt Robin
· 10 months ago
Couldn't agree more!
If data ownership is 'that' important to you, hold the data yourself. If anyone has data on Facebook (or other services) then you're already agreeing that they can hold on to it as they see fit. Facebook's revised TOS is not a big deal.
Christopher Coulter
· 10 months ago
But what's Facebook going to do with all that data? Start a Corbis/Getty Images of out-of-focus snapshots? They can't even extract real revenue, plundering the uploaded content is mining a sea of fool's gold. Such a strategy is well beyond the 'Emperor Hath no Clothes', that's on the level of the 'Emperor Doesn't Even Believe in the Existence of Clothes'.
Draconian overreach for sure, but that's true of most of Web 2.0erra. And photography is a commodity now, prosumer level is professional enough to avoid the high-end studios, but not always, your average joe, with a $2,000 dig camera, still isn't going to be doing EQUITY/SAG headshots. Just saying, as access increases, skill-level increases, but true in reverse too, access increases garbage-heaps serious, like in the early Desktop Publishing days where people created flyers using EVERY SINGLE FONT on the system.
Peter
· 10 months ago
But when I don't own any rights to the photos I did upload into Facebook?
Mark
· 10 months ago
Heck even where you think you have control you don't. Paypal will even hold your cash and not give it to you. And that was money that was yours!
While I'm here why not tell everyone even your bank can hold your funds based on your past banking experiences for up to a couple of weeks. Is it legal I'm not sure - but I'll bet they covered there butts in their TOS documents.
So when it comes to content and participation in Social Networks et al people are being surprised. Thanks for clearing it up Robert.
It was great having you come by yesterday in Pleasanton - Thanks again!
Max Kennerly
· 10 months ago
Scoble's missed the boat, same as Chris Brogan did.
Facebook (and LinkedIn) has Terms that are NOT the same as everyone else's, and which, unlike MySpace, Flickr, YouTube, Picasa and Twitter, do NOT permit you to revoke their license to use your content.
I dove into the legal issues (enforceability, effect of Zuckerberg's post, etc) here: http://is.gd/jJXy
Ken the tech
· 10 months ago
I was dealing with (professional) pictures for a while now, and this is the reason I don't agree with so many social networks like Facebook, Flickr and others, because they can use any picture uploaded without any assent. This is a good moment to think about.
Ben
· 10 months ago
If you join a site whose TOS includes includes the ability to change the TOS later... and most social networks have language similar to this... you agreed to pretty much anything.
Andrew Baron
· 10 months ago
"Truth is it doesn’t matter." - Robert Scoble. B.S. to that, big time.
By the way, legally the author or content creator ALWAYS has copyrights. But defending those online is pretty difficult sometimes.
Yes, but your giving them away on facebook. You give them pretty much all rights a copyright holder has.
Glynx
· 10 months ago
We agree with you Scobleizer. Why is everyone getting their "knickers in a knot?" If you use an intermediation service of course they observe and control what you send them. If you want privacy use a P2P application instead of web 2.0.
Roland Loser
· 10 months ago
Call me foolish, but I do not believe that FB is going to sell your content (which would be ridiculous) , or is going to use your content in a way which you would not expect. The TOS are there to protect FB against all sorts of possible lawsuits, which could arise by some sort of miss-use by third parties. I'm from Switzerland, where this TOS debate is also big news. This evening a big TV News Show reported about this issue. They added arbitrary FB User uploaded photos to their report. I guess they didn't ask FB nor the users/owners of the pictures whether they might use them. I think this is exactly one of the reason's why the FB TOS are verbalized in a way that you never can sue FB for such a case.
Jim Goldstein
· 10 months ago
I am continually perplexed by your stance on issues such as this. Your needs and use of social media sites are not one size fits all and your approach of guiding others to do the same of giving everything away for free is troubling. If it were so simple FastCompany wouldn't be so concerned about protecting the work you do for them. Individuals who strive to leverage social media to make a name for themselves, market and pick up clients as a sole proprietorship or LLC suffer from such a blanket recommendation. If rights and protections matter so little to you then I'm sure you don't mind the government taking away your rights next. I just scratch my head at such logic. Facebook needs to have a ToU that allows them to safely do business, but the notion of forcing expansive terms beyond what they need on users and stating, "Trust us. We'll do the right thing." is unrealistic. The ToU should be written as they intend to use them and they should be interpreted as though what is written is how they'll use them. This is what the courts will do and it is certainly how any future disagreements will be resolved. Rolling over and stating "Truth is it doesn't matter" is irresponsible.
Greg Rolan
· 10 months ago
This is why we developed Glynx.
Glynx (www.glynx.com) is a new social communication platform that works peer-to-peer and affords its users true privacy and control.
For example, once we connect in Glynx, my address book is updated with your contact details as they may change in real time - without any third party observing my details, your details or our online relationship.
Kind of like Plaxo meets Skype.
Glynx doesn't even see your info - so there's no debate about what we do with it.
Christopher Coulter
· 10 months ago
Each asset has to be accorded its own rights vetting determination, just because someone uploads something, it doesn't automatically stand that they had the authority from the point of origin.
It matters.
Robert W. Anderson
· 10 months ago
Robert, I basically agree with you that this isn't shocking since Facebook hasn't respected user's much; however, I do think ascerting ownership to data already in the system crosses the line. In that vein, I wrote "User-beware of Facebook"
This is similar to the Google Reader shared feed issue that Steve Gillmor railed on for a while.
Adam Singer
· 10 months ago
Robert,
Yes, yes and yes. I have been posting essentially what you wrote here in EVERY Facebook thread I have seen. Facebook + MySpace = the new walled gardens.
I think I figured it out though. Here it is: These tech bloggers can't figure out what to write on. Therefore any shred of news, no matter how obvious or insigificant is magnified ten fold. It hits page 1 of digg. The top bloggers go nuts over it. Everyone debates. The discussion is pointless.
Come on guys, we're smarter than this. Thanks for posting Scoble, you saved me the effort.
Nigel Walsh
· 10 months ago
Im with you on this - I dont really care that much for this - the interesting thing now is they just switched back - and have reverted back to the previous TOS.
While you were sleeping: Some people cared and Facebook revised their TOS to the old ones (they are working on a new version): http://www.allfacebook.com/2009/02/facebook-rev... Zuckerberg said "More than 175 million people use Facebook. If it were a country, it would be the sixth most populated country in the world. Our terms aren’t just a document that protect our rights; it’s the governing document for how the service is used by everyone across the world. Given its importance, we need to make sure the terms reflect the principles and values of the people using the service. "
Rob Bell
· 10 months ago
Nice statement I found on my Facebook page this morning -
>Over the past few days, we have received a lot of feedback about the new >terms we posted two weeks ago. Because of this response, we have >decided to return to our previous Terms of Use while we resolve the issues >that people have raised. For more information, visit the Facebook Blog.
>If you want to share your thoughts on what should be in the new terms, >check out our group Facebook Bill of Rights and Responsibilities.
How many new members do you think that group's going to get today?!?!
allenhark
· 10 months ago
Hi Robert, It's your long-time buddy Allen Harkleroad. Since 1998 I and my company have self-hosted and owned our own network/IP addressing space. I never have liked most 3rd party services that tend to end up monetizing their users content. Owning your own servers make a lot of sense.
Allen
Abhishek
· 10 months ago
Facebook has now returned to its previous terms of use based on user response. Goes against your justification, robert. It does matter to facebook :-)
Qlubb-Andy
· 10 months ago
Regardless of whether they changed it or not, several lessons abound -- most of the cloud is out of your control.
k
· 10 months ago
When you make your photos public you do it because you either want to help others or you want to help enrich the site and that too helps others. The problem with FB's rules was they owned your photos even if the photos were private. And when you leave the site, FB has the right to use those private photos. FB changed its TOS again but I don't think M. Zuckerburg had the intention of doing something wrong.
Ken the tech
· 10 months ago
I heard that Facebook after the tons of rows and reactions, add some changes to its terms of service this days.
andrewlindsey
· 10 months ago
Yup, I can tell with 25 years of IT tech and busines experience, that everything you ever typed on the Internet is stored somwhere -or several places- and that you cannot "clean it up" nor "control it". That's the sole purpose of DARPA's invention (not Al Gore's).
Remember when you were told to watch what you say? Well, now watch what you type.
I agree that facebook is a business and we are using their services at the expense of the content and information we put up there. However, you can't just change the ToS and not say anything about it, especially when it involves privacy matters.
LP
· 10 months ago
Professional and Amateur photographers beware. If you don't want the licensing or use of your content compromised, never share it on Facebook or another public domain sharing site. Protect yourself, photos, and your subjects.
thismayconcernyou
· 10 months ago
I don't really care about the TOS (I do) ... I just want Zuckerberg and Co. to change the facebook friend request options so that I can remove myself from facebook friend purgatory ...
What's the big deal? It's not like FB is going to start selling pictures of you if you get famous... Or maybe they will? Either way, I think the more frightening piece of technology news was a GPS sending someone 200 miles out their way...
i can only speak for myself, but i reacted strongly only because i think i had been obliviously not thinking about it. fingers in ears "lalalalalalalala". and then with all of the press/blog coverage i went "oh!"
naive. yes. over-reaction. yes.
but still helpful, since it changed my perspective.
Matt Moran
· 10 months ago
I'm not concerned about material getting into the public domain - I'm concerned about a large & well funded corporation claiming rights to material in the public domain - the risk being that at some point down the line they search for the same images or text & sue me for royalties to use my own material!
Jonathan
· 10 months ago
FB's business model is advertising, hence their need to control user data. If FB changed their business model to a simple utility model where a fee (mandatory or voluntary) is assessed for their service with feature-based pricing (much like US cable system where its main function is connectivity), they will not have to claim rights to user data. Of course, their ridiculous valuation will suffer.
PerfectMoney
· 10 months ago
and I wonder now why more days to come facebook turn into such a bad boy,after the sued ,after the plagiarized stealing idea ,why facebook still thinking that he is such a charming site for many peoples to gather around and make some fun with there friend with.?why it such a rule in which he just cant just let us go to be free.do you think this what they do to impress google so that google buy them immediately?
Incognita
· 10 months ago
Can you help?
Hi,
I did not violate any rules, I just accidentally deleted my account and would like it back. Unfortunately when I try to log in, I no longer exist because I added my email to my daughters account which caused my account to disappear. Please, please help!
Bayanlarla Sohbet
· 10 months ago
Yes.Me to have read about Facebook TOS scandal...
rivercity
· 10 months ago
Social networking sites are like banks. They create value only if people create content or deposit money (in case of banks). If the service provider sabotages customers’ trust, I don’t see a sustainable future for that particular business. Just posted my views on this episode here:http://www.codelathe.com/blog/index.php/2009/02/21/facebook-sixth-most-populous-kingdom-on-earth/
Ray Scott
· 10 months ago
It does matter. They have no right to make money off your content unless it CC. And changing their terms AFTER you have signed up with a different agreement is just plain shady. \
You say it doesn't matter in the title of your post, but you wouldn't upload your videos there. Still bitter about them deleting your account. tut tut.
Thanks for the laugh.
Joe
· 10 months ago
the fact that Facebook change their TOS back so quickly is an indication that they knew they were wrong in the first place
Abhishek
· 10 months ago
@Ray - Almost every "Terms & Conditions" that I've come across has a clause that effectively amounts to "We reserve the rights to change these terms at any point in future".
So no, changing the terms AFTER we have signed up with a different agreement is not all that shady.
Engago Team
· 10 months ago
Free Use rhymes with Free Content. Pay Use rhymes with Proprietary Content.
Get a paid service and sleep well.
Brian
· 10 months ago
Robert, I understand your cynical attitude. But I disagree. The problem here is transparency, or the lack of it by Zuckerberg, et al. They have tried stunts like this before, and luckily for Facebook users, they've been outed. The fact that Zuckerberg has tried repeatedly to take control of their users' content, freely assume that activities of users could be broadcast, that user privacy is unimportant is proof positive of the callous disregard for the people who give any legitimacy or value to Facebook.
The fact is, Facebook has a broken business model. Zuckerberg is desperately trying to monetize the one thing he has - eyeballs. And unlike Google, he's doing a terrible job. In 1999, blissed out Internet pundits claimed that savings and earnings no longer mattered, but eyeballs do. Fast forward less than a year later, and they are harshly proven wrong by the decline of the NASDAQ. And yet, Wall Street and pundits alike are falling all over themselves to praise Mark Zuckerberg for his ability to capture eyeballs. But unlike the folks from Google, Facebook is the next cool idea in search of a profitable quarter. In the desperation to convert eyeballs to dollars, Facebook has become arrogant and disingenuous. It's why I believe that unless Mark Zuckerberg takes a hard look at the ethics of running his business, that the day may come when Facebook, despite its large membership, becomes a Trivial Pursuit question.
And for me, that day can't come soon enough. I am proud NOT to be a member of Facebook.
gazete
· 10 months ago
i like facebook, in any conditions, i will continue to live on virtually for friends :D
eric
· 9 months ago
are you on vacation?
hope all is well.
esd714
· 9 months ago
I like the twist FB added yesterday to this--with kind of a WiKi for TOS--making the TOS for the site a community forum.
Not sure that is a great business decsision, but certainly should untangle bunched up panties.
bjorn
· 9 months ago
You come into his father's kingdom if you are U.S. propagandists The right to bear arms human right Just crap in the tax payer Just slide Politicians accept the consensus on the term Left Intellectual = just kill packet General amnesty
Patrick O'Malley
· 9 months ago
Well said. Too many people overrate things like this, and after all, you're dealing with a free site that you gave your pictures and information to.
Is there anything that protects emails from disappearing? Think about the morning after finding out that Yahoo shut down it servers. Worse than Pan Am miles going worthless, Citibank failing, 3000 dow. Have a nice day.
Acapulco
· 9 months ago
Scoble,
Are you still alive?
You posted this on feb the 17th!!!
Theresa Precinct 368cor
· 9 months ago
Equally annoying is that way past the elections Facebook is still placing Obama ads near our conservative postings.
Marco
· 9 months ago
Dude... 3 weeks with no post equals dead blog.
Ahad Bokhari
· 9 months ago
I totally agree with you Scobleizer, it could have been said better!
Ahad Bokhari
· 9 months ago
sorry typo, *it couldn't have said it better (DELETE ME)
mitziszereto
· 9 months ago
frankly i'm fed up with facebook's gestapo and arbitrary tactics. i've had a lot of grief from them and i still continue to get grief. there needs to be some kind of fair system in place, not this random nonsense that results in people having their accounts deleted or being told they can and cannot do such and such. like you, i'm nearly at my limit for adding friends. now what? do i suddenly become anti-social on a social network? they have us at their mercy, they really do.
Dan
· 9 months ago
I am so tired of reading about Facebook doing this or that. What is next? Facebook comes out with the new fPhone? How can they mine our voice data? I am sure they are already thinking of this.
Mark
· 9 months ago
What's going on? I just joined FB. It asks, "Who can see this?" and I replied "Only Friends". Is that not true? FM!
Medspa Doc
· 9 months ago
Facebook seems to have something of a half life. After 18 months I have less interaction.
Jeff Barson
· 9 months ago
While Facebook plans to take over the world, it seems less and less interesting. Of course it'll make a couple of more billion.
In Canton Berne, foreign buyers seeking a property in Grindelwald can buy any apartment or chalet over 750,000Sfrs, whilst in Wengen you can only buy switzerland clothing apartments. All these restrictions ensure the market is not flooded with foreign buyers and resorts don’t become overcrowded.
All Comments
I'm glad to see that mainstream media picked up on this story, since I blogged about it on February 9th and will be presenting a talk about it at Ignite Portland on Thursday.
I wrote about this myself yesterday on my blog!
At the risk of shooting my own foot, I for one would love stronger - much stronger - regulations on what companies can and cannot do with user accounts and user data, as well as an external "appeal" entity.
You read the TOS, and you know what you're signing up for. I don't think it's reasonable to expect everyone to be as savvy though.
That said, I still don't use facebook and have no plans to start. I like controlling my information and having email archives that extend as far back as I want. Not to mention anyone can contact me, even if their company blocks facebook (since very few outlaw email).
I don't like that a company can shut me down for no reason at all. At least with email their is competition. I can also move my email (thanks to having a domain).
I won't use a service in a way I can't afford to loose unless I either have backups, other options.
Even my twitter feed is backed up to my personal database. So if twitter goes under, I still have a record of my content. Still thinking of a way to harvest tinyurl.com links for future use should that service go under.
If you have no control over your data, it's your fault, not a companies. Thanks to many companies out there who are very good about making data portable (WordPress, even Google is very good).
Facebook customers are advertisers, and only advertisers since everything else is free. And they are treated better (for example, support response time is faster when it concerns Ads). But it's normal.
As a user, nobody should expect anything from a free service: it's all bonus !
Microsoft could put in their ToS agreement for your first born to be spoon fed with all sorts of MS crapware until they're 12 years old, before transferring ownership of said being to Bill Gates himself. Doesn't make it legally binding, now does it?
The real issue here is about data ownership. Or rather the total lack thereof. Our personal information is a very valuable asset. Lots of different interests are vying for control of it. Anybody who gets their hands on it can claim ownership. Yet as individuals we have no rights.
We wouldn't feel right if anyone who could get hold of it could grab a chunk of our intellectual, financial or property assets. We've got laws that protect us from that happening. Yet none in the personal information asset world. That's the real issue here. Not whether FB stores two copies of our messages on their servers.
I posted this yesterday with more detail.
Yea the possibilities of what FB can do with such data can be scary, but have they done anything yet? Has Facebook ever done anything harmful to its users with this type of information? Yes, there was the whole Beacon thing when it first came out, but FB realized the mistake and pulled the program.
I am an attorney who in the past has drafted Terms of Service and Privacy Policies. It is unfortunate, but whenever you post anything on the web (including Facebook), you should assume there could be a security or other failure and all your material could end up public.
Terms of Service and Privacy Policies do not - unfortunately - provide much recourse or protection to the user. In fact many of these terms and policies are written essentially to protect the company making them and not the user. I hope that this changes in the future, but even if it did, there could be a security failure and your posts and materials could end up on the Internet for all to see and use and you would have little recourse - if any.
It would be interesting to see if user communities ever develop a "union" and essentially demand certain policies and terms. I wonder why this has not happened although I understand why organized collective action is difficult. If this were to occur, perhaps led by privacy or internet advocates, it may be possible to demand and receive more protection. Just a thought.
People should take the time to read Terms of Service and Privacy Policies on the services they use. They will find that many - if not most - are not there to protect the user and thus the user will be more cognizant of the type of information they post and make choices based on this.
Bottom line: Assume everything is public and in the public domain when you post anything in any forum - whether secure or not - whether shielded by privacy controls or not. Security is not fool-proof or hacker-proof. If you let this guide you, you will not have a problem in the future if things go wrong.
If data ownership is 'that' important to you, hold the data yourself.
If anyone has data on Facebook (or other services) then you're already agreeing that they can hold on to it as they see fit. Facebook's revised TOS is not a big deal.
Draconian overreach for sure, but that's true of most of Web 2.0erra. And photography is a commodity now, prosumer level is professional enough to avoid the high-end studios, but not always, your average joe, with a $2,000 dig camera, still isn't going to be doing EQUITY/SAG headshots. Just saying, as access increases, skill-level increases, but true in reverse too, access increases garbage-heaps serious, like in the early Desktop Publishing days where people created flyers using EVERY SINGLE FONT on the system.
While I'm here why not tell everyone even your bank can hold your funds based on your past banking experiences for up to a couple of weeks. Is it legal I'm not sure - but I'll bet they covered there butts in their TOS documents.
So when it comes to content and participation in Social Networks et al people are being surprised. Thanks for clearing it up Robert.
It was great having you come by yesterday in Pleasanton - Thanks again!
Facebook (and LinkedIn) has Terms that are NOT the same as everyone else's, and which, unlike MySpace, Flickr, YouTube, Picasa and Twitter, do NOT permit you to revoke their license to use your content.
I dove into the legal issues (enforceability, effect of Zuckerberg's post, etc) here: http://is.gd/jJXy
http://twitter.com/andrewbaron/status/1219010436
Yes, but your giving them away on facebook. You give them pretty much all rights a copyright holder has.
If you want privacy use a P2P application instead of web 2.0.
Glynx (www.glynx.com) is a new social communication platform that works peer-to-peer and affords its users true privacy and control.
For example, once we connect in Glynx, my address book is updated with your contact details as they may change in real time - without any third party observing my details, your details or our online relationship.
Kind of like Plaxo meets Skype.
Glynx doesn't even see your info - so there's no debate about what we do with it.
It matters.
This is similar to the Google Reader shared feed issue that Steve Gillmor railed on for a while.
Yes, yes and yes. I have been posting essentially what you wrote here in EVERY Facebook thread I have seen. Facebook + MySpace = the new walled gardens.
I think I figured it out though. Here it is:
These tech bloggers can't figure out what to write on. Therefore any shred of news, no matter how obvious or insigificant is magnified ten fold. It hits page 1 of digg. The top bloggers go nuts over it. Everyone debates. The discussion is pointless.
Come on guys, we're smarter than this. Thanks for posting Scoble, you saved me the effort.
See here: http://www.socialmedian.com/story/3073441/break....
I noticed this when I logged in this AM their TOS message: http://tinyurl.com/b2ut4x
Zuckerberg said "More than 175 million people use Facebook. If it were a country, it would be the sixth most populated country in the world. Our terms aren’t just a document that protect our rights; it’s the governing document for how the service is used by everyone across the world. Given its importance, we need to make sure the terms reflect the principles and values of the people using the service. "
>Over the past few days, we have received a lot of feedback about the new >terms we posted two weeks ago. Because of this response, we have >decided to return to our previous Terms of Use while we resolve the issues >that people have raised. For more information, visit the Facebook Blog.
>If you want to share your thoughts on what should be in the new terms, >check out our group Facebook Bill of Rights and Responsibilities.
How many new members do you think that group's going to get today?!?!
It's your long-time buddy Allen Harkleroad. Since 1998 I and my company have self-hosted and owned our own network/IP addressing space. I never have liked most 3rd party services that tend to end up monetizing their users content. Owning your own servers make a lot of sense.
Allen
The problem with FB's rules was they owned your photos even if the photos were private. And when you leave the site, FB has the right to use those private photos.
FB changed its TOS again but I don't think M. Zuckerburg had the intention of doing something wrong.
Remember when you were told to watch what you say? Well, now watch what you type.
AndrewLindsey.wordpress.com
http://thismayconcernyou.com/2009/02/06/faceboo...
Read about it here: www.youcanneverbehappy.wordpress.com
naive. yes. over-reaction. yes.
but still helpful, since it changed my perspective.
Hi,
I did not violate any rules, I just accidentally deleted my account and would like it back. Unfortunately when I try to log in, I no longer exist because I added my email to my daughters account which caused my account to disappear. Please, please help!
You say it doesn't matter in the title of your post, but you wouldn't upload your videos there. Still bitter about them deleting your account. tut tut.
Thanks for the laugh.
So no, changing the terms AFTER we have signed up with a different agreement is not all that shady.
Pay Use rhymes with Proprietary Content.
Get a paid service and sleep well.
The fact is, Facebook has a broken business model. Zuckerberg is desperately trying to monetize the one thing he has - eyeballs. And unlike Google, he's doing a terrible job. In 1999, blissed out Internet pundits claimed that savings and earnings no longer mattered, but eyeballs do. Fast forward less than a year later, and they are harshly proven wrong by the decline of the NASDAQ. And yet, Wall Street and pundits alike are falling all over themselves to praise Mark Zuckerberg for his ability to capture eyeballs. But unlike the folks from Google, Facebook is the next cool idea in search of a profitable quarter. In the desperation to convert eyeballs to dollars, Facebook has become arrogant and disingenuous. It's why I believe that unless Mark Zuckerberg takes a hard look at the ethics of running his business, that the day may come when Facebook, despite its large membership, becomes a Trivial Pursuit question.
And for me, that day can't come soon enough. I am proud NOT to be a member of Facebook.
hope all is well.
Not sure that is a great business decsision, but certainly should untangle bunched up panties.
The right to bear arms human right
Just crap in the tax payer
Just slide
Politicians accept the consensus on the term
Left Intellectual = just kill packet
General amnesty
Pat O'Malley
Pat O'Malley
Are you still alive?
You posted this on feb the 17th!!!