Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Government Social Networks United States Your Rights Online

Senators Tell Facebook To Quit Sharing Users' Info 256

Posted by kdawson
from the in-your-heart-you-know-it's-wrong dept.
Hugh Pickens notes a USA Today story reporting that two US senators have joined Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) in telling Facebook to quit sharing more of its users' data than they signed up for. Politico.com ups USA Today's ante, saying that it was three more senators, not two more, who joined Schumer's call: Michael Bennet (D-CO), Mark Begich (D-AK), and Al Franken (D-MN). The senators are asking the FTC to look at Facebook's controversial new information-sharing policies, arguing that the massively popular social network overstepped its bounds when it began sharing user data with other websites. Sen. Schumer said he learned about the new rules from his daughter, who is in law school, but added that he's noticed no difference on his own Facebook page, which, he assured reporters, "is very boring." "I can attest to that," deadpanned Franken, who made his living as a comedian before entering the Senate, and whose Facebook followers outnumber Schumer's by ten to one.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Senators Tell Facebook To Quit Sharing Users' Info

Comments Filter:
  • It's kind of sad... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Daetrin (576516) on Tuesday April 27, 2010 @03:48PM (#32003794)
    It's kind of sad that apparently one of our more intelligent congresscritters, one who's willing to speak out for consumer rights at least (no matter how silly this case may actually be according to some people) "started out" as a comedian. But i guess if you're using lifetime politicians as a baseline...
    • by Moryath (553296)

      It amazes me that he ever made any sort of a living as a "comedian", given that his entire "funny" schtick (yes, I read his books... *shudder*) is calling his political opponents foul-mouthed names.

      Maybe that appeals to a certain portion of the population. Or else that's a sad sign of how far political discourse has fallen.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        The obvious solution is to elect Dennis Miller. He can provide a conservative counter-weight to Franken and with his rants I smell new records in filibustering.
        • by Moryath (553296)

          "filibustering" doesn't quite mean what you think it means. In the old days you actually had to keep talking. Eventually, everyone would get tired, pass out, leave the floor, and talking would end.

          These days, they "agree to filibuster", table the motion, and that's that. No actual talking needed. It's a bastardization of process that both sides are guilty of signing on to.

          • Pros and Cons to the bastardization.

            At least now it takes 41 members to call a filibuster and bring Congress to a hault. Previously a single member of Congress could bring Congress to a hault.
        • How do you improve on a 100% filibuster rate?

      • by mweather (1089505) on Tuesday April 27, 2010 @04:05PM (#32004038)

        It amazes me that he ever made any sort of a living as a "comedian", given that his entire "funny" schtick (yes, I read his books... *shudder*) is calling his political opponents foul-mouthed names

        You do realise the man was one of the original writers for SNL, right? He didn't get into political comedy until his comedy career's third decade.

        • You're suggesting he didn't write political comedy for SNL?

          • by corbettw (214229) <corbettw@noSpAm.yahoo.com> on Tuesday April 27, 2010 @04:36PM (#32004404) Journal

            No I think he's suggesting SNL was once a comedy program. Personally, I find that difficult to believe.

            • by Moryath (553296)

              If the highlight of their "comedy" is the "I'm on a boat" sketch... *shudder*. They stopped being funny about a decade ago.

              • by PCM2 (4486)

                Oh come now, this is just more "get off my lawn" sour grapes. Every new generation that comes along thinks SNL stopped being funny about a decade ago.

                • Oh come now, this is just more "get off my lawn" sour grapes. Every new generation that comes along thinks SNL stopped being funny about a decade ago.

                  I know an SNL writer and he tells me that SNL is no longer funny because Lorne Michaels has his pet writers who actually are no longer funny. The writers who are actually funny have no power and their stuff is chosen less frequently than the old guard. I find this ironic, since I too think that SNL hasn't been funny since about the Mike Meyers-Dana Carvey era, which means the old writers should be funny. However, by "old", I think my friend means the writers that came along during the Norm what's his face y

                  • by Moryath (553296)

                    The quality of the actors is going downhill. Their guys used to be able to ad-lib and work around a forgotten line or failed joke. And none of them looked as if they were just reading off a teleprompter - some of the physical stuff the stars used to do made that pretty much impossible!

                    Taking the current past THREE generations (going back roundabout to 1996), it's just not the case any more. Most of the "sketches" are just people standing around reading off of a teleprompter, and the jokes are getting progre

      • It amazes me that he ever made any sort of a living as a "comedian", given that his entire "funny" schtick (yes, I read his books... *shudder*) is calling his political opponents foul-mouthed names.

        Franken's comedy is mostly in TV, both as a writer and performer. Contrary to TFS, Franken worked largely as a political commentator (both as a writer and a talk-radio host) from at least 2003, and less as a comedian.

        Further, if you'd actually read his books, you would know that, even for the political books, tha

      • by copponex (13876) on Tuesday April 27, 2010 @04:06PM (#32004058) Homepage

        In many ways I'm still a Hubert Humphrey Democrat -- someone who believes in afflicting the comfortable and comforting the afflicted. A society is judged by how it treats the elderly, the sick, the impoverished. To me it's a matter of ethics and compassion. -Al Franken

        We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. -Ann Coulter

        Yeah, about that political discourse...

        • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

          by MartinSchou (1360093)

          We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. -Ann Coulter

          How about we declare Ann Coulter's home a new country for a few days? That way she can have two out of three of her wishes fulfilled, AND she'll get a front row seat to the spectacle.

          Also, film step three. I'd love to see some fundamental right wing Christian nutter trying to convert three cats and a gold fish.

        • by e2d2 (115622)

          Ann Coulter is Franken's equal? What kind of Bizzaro world did I just land in?

      • Maybe that appeals to a certain portion of the population.

        People get the leaders they deserve.

      • by poetmatt (793785)

        yet, he seems to understand his issues significantly better than well, all the grandstanding politicians we know and hate. Maybe it's because he actually reads things instead of just following the whip.

      • by Locke2005 (849178)
        His political books like Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot were only a small facet of his career in comedy. My biggest objections to his books is he always says something like "I'm not going to stoop to the same level as the Republicans" just before stooping to the same level as the Republicans. Apparently he thinks this is being "ironic". His Stuart Smalley books sucked. However, his body of work on SNL was world class IMHO.
    • by rsborg (111459) on Tuesday April 27, 2010 @03:54PM (#32003892) Homepage
      linky [dailyfinance.com]:

      "I have not moved out of the comedian's box into the news box. The news box is moving towards me.

      Perhaps Senator Franken thinks the same thing?

    • by e2d2 (115622)

      It beats another "I'm rich and white so I must be your leader". Although technically he is rich and white. Damn it! Foiled again by reality!

    • by fahrbot-bot (874524) on Tuesday April 27, 2010 @04:22PM (#32004252)

      It's kind of sad that apparently one of our more intelligent congress critters ... "started out" as a comedian. But i guess if you're using lifetime politicians as a baseline...

      Um, the same could be said for a certain actor [wikipedia.org] who became president, or singer [wikipedia.org] who became a congressman, or village idiot [wikipedia.org] that became president...

      • by Locke2005 (849178)
        The village idiot just proves the old adage, "It's not what you know, it's who you know!" The actor is actually doing a fairly decent job. The "singer"?!? Well, he was a better comedian than singer, and to this day I cannot figure out how he actually got elected.
  • by meow27 (1526173) on Tuesday April 27, 2010 @03:48PM (#32003804)
    because i have 0 facebook friends.
  • Problem (Score:5, Interesting)

    by skine (1524819) on Tuesday April 27, 2010 @03:50PM (#32003840)

    The major problem I see here is that Facebook is allowed to change its terms without notifying anyone.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Thanatiel (445743)

      The problem is that most of the Facebook users didn't closed their account when it happened.

      • by cynyr (703126)
        you can close and have your data deleted from facebook? do you have a list of detailed steps to go about that?
        • Re:Problem (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Enderandrew (866215) <enderandrew@noSPam.gmail.com> on Tuesday April 27, 2010 @04:35PM (#32004402) Homepage Journal

          I went through the process of asking to have my account deleted. I stopped using Facebook for over a year. A quick Google search still showed my profile as visible. I went back to the site a year later, and logged in just fine. My account never went anywhere and was never deleted.

          The real problem here is that Facebook pledged on their website that information was going to be private. Now they're sharing that very information and not even giving you any option to opt-out of it. They lied to all their users.

          Could it be said they defrauder users for information that they've deemed valuable enough to sell to partner sites?

          This is a major misstep.

      • > most of the Facebook users didn't closed their account when it happened.

        Which is actually a cousin of the problem that Facebook is a walled garden that sucks information in but won't let it out. If people could just hit an 'export' button (or an 'import' button at another site) and get everything out of Facebook and maintain their existing connections then people probably would leave. But they can't, so they don't.

        And this is why most of us geeks keep whining about 'portability' and 'walled gardens'

    • But their terms say they can.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      All websites say in their "Terms of Service" or equivalent some variation of this:

      "We reserve the right to change these terms at anytime."

      So, it's not just Facebook, it every website on the net.

      • Re:Problem (Score:5, Insightful)

        by dgatwood (11270) on Tuesday April 27, 2010 @04:42PM (#32004484) Journal

        And in every case, it's not worth the bits it is printed on.

        Terms of a contract cannot be changed at-will by a single party. There cannot legally be a meeting of the minds if one party is not aware of the updated terms. Facebook provided no notice that their terms of service were changing and offered no opportunity to preemptively decline the new terms. As such, Facebook's new terms of service are prima facie invalid. There is no possibility whatsoever that a court would side with Facebook on this one if it ever went to court. Companies that place such terms in their contracts either A. require you to agree to the new terms on next login (which Facebook usually does not), or B. are hoping the public never notice (which Facebook apparently does).

        Thus, these contract terms are already completely bogus. What we really need are laws that provide for the following:

        • Any lawyer who creates a contract with foreknowledge that a term in the contract is invalid shall be disbarred and banned from all practice of law (including corporate) for a period of five years on the first offense, permanently on the second.
        • Any lawyer who unknowingly creates a contract with invalid terms that were invalid at the time the contract was created shall be disbarred for 1 year and required to attend one year of retraining at the law school of his/her choice.
        • Any corporation creating a contract with terms that are not valid under U.S. law shall be liable for fines of $1 million per occurrence or 50% of net profit from the previous year, whichever is greater.
        • Any corporation knowingly creating a contract with terms that are not valid under U.S. law shall be liable for fines of $10 million per occurrence or 200% of net profit from the previous year, whichever is greater.

        It's not enough for the contract terms to be invalid. They're already invalid now and companies still pull this crap. We need laws with actual teeth that punish companies who deliberately abuse contract law.

        In the case of Facebook right now, the only real question is whether their new terms constitute a breach of their old terms and invalidate any rights they have to users' data or not. I suspect that depends more on the mood of the judge, should this ever go to court. Facebook is in a rather untenable legal position, IMHO, and their legal team should be canned en masse.

        • Corporations are sneaky critters. They'd probably use Hollywood Accounting [wikipedia.org]. It's best to go after their gross revenues than net profits.
    • by macraig (621737)

      We gave away the keys to that farm a LONG time ago. How long have credit card, telecom, and pretty much every corporate service provider been allowed to have legal contracts - AKA service agreements or terms of service - that explicitly specify that they are allowed to change the terms of the contract without notice at any time?

      That stipulation is completely contrary to common-sense contractual law and logic, yet they've been getting away with it for decades now. How is that?

      • by dave562 (969951)

        On the subject of credit cards you are wrong. They have to notify you in writing when they change their terms of service. Unless you opt out and close your account, you implicitly agree to the new terms. The new consumer protection laws that passed now stipulate that if the card companies change their terms and you don't agree, they have to freeze your account at whatever the terms were before they changed them. You cannot continue to use the account but you can continue to pay it off without any additi

    • Umm.......that's part of the original terms.

      -Subject to change without notice-

      This basically means they can do anything.

    • Re:Problem (Score:5, Funny)

      by Lije Baley (88936) on Tuesday April 27, 2010 @04:09PM (#32004100)

      "I have altered the deal. Pray that I don't alter it further."

    • by cynyr (703126)
      and that i can't then quit and have all references of me purged.
    • They are not guilty of not notifying anyone. I got a big dialog the first time I logged in after they changed the policy. I couldn't do anything on Facebook until I acknowledged the new terms.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 27, 2010 @03:53PM (#32003868)

    I am tired of companies changing the rules but saying you can opt-out. How about we get to "opt-in" if we want Facebook to share our data with 3rd party websites??

    I am willing to share certain information with just my Facebook friends, but I don't want it shared with every website on the Internet. Sheesh.

    • by ircmaxell (1117387) on Tuesday April 27, 2010 @04:01PM (#32003984) Homepage
      This. If they said it in the beginning, that's one thing. But telling us one thing, then later changing it and saying "well, all you need to do is tell us not to" is nothing more than a slimy practice. And I don't buy the "Well, we told you that we reserved the right to do it" argument. If they added controls to "opt-out" today, then they are acknowledging that there's more to it than what was written initially. What's the difference between that, and me going up to you on a busy street and saying "If you don't tell me no, your house is now mine" even if you didn't even hear it? Isn't that basically what they are doing here?
      • by Culture20 (968837)

        This. If they said it in the beginning, that's one thing. But telling us one thing, then later changing it and saying "well, all you need to do is tell us not to" is nothing more than a slimy practice. And I don't buy the "Well, we told you that we reserved the right to do it" argument. If they added controls to "opt-out" today, then they are acknowledging that there's more to it than what was written initially. What's the difference between that, and me going up to you on a busy street and saying "If you don't tell me no, your house is now mine" even if you didn't even hear it? Isn't that basically what they are doing here?

        They're not even providing tools to opt-out. It's closer to you coming up to me on a busy street, duct-taping my mouth and saying "If you don't tell me no, your house is now mine".

        The website sharing thing was coupled with an expansion of "public data" a couple days later. Essentially, FB said: Hey, we're going to start sharing your info with websites, but you can opt-out; just declick this several-layers-deep checkbox, and then confirm the ambiguous warning, and ignore the text that says "Your frien

  • by Darkness404 (1287218) on Tuesday April 27, 2010 @04:00PM (#32003976)
    The problem I see is that this will lead to more regulation, which leads to less innovation, more draconian laws (see DMCA) and losses of freedom. What congress needs to do is to force -everyone- not just Facebook, MySpace, etc. is that they can't just change terms and conditions whenever they see fit without making us agree to them again.

    This is -fraud- and must be eliminated. Think of it this way, you go to Wal-Mart, buy a new blender thinking it had the feature to, say, crush ice. So for the first week it does it just fine then the next week it won't crush ice because that feature had been removed. You should have a right to demand a refund. (And that example wasn't too far out there, look at Sony and the PS3...) and you should have the -right- to be notified when things change. If you aren't informed of the change, you didn't agree to it therefore the contract should be voided.

    Any license that states that they can change the conditions must be made illegal. A contract or license is an -agreement- and agreements mean that 2 parties need to know what they are agreeing to. If they don't, its not an agreement.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by L0rdJedi (65690)

      Or

      If you don't like the license agreement and the fact that it can be changed at any time, STOP USING FACEBOOK or any other site with a similar agreement. The problem isn't the agreement. The problem is that people don't care. Nobody has to use Facebook or any other social networking site. If you don't like their TOS, don't use their service. It's that simple.

      • Its still fraud though and fraud is fraud. The entire point of having a government is not to 'bail out' large businesses, send millions of dollars in aid to Africa, or pay for a life-sized painting of George Bush, it is to prevent fraud and force. If the government sees fraud happening, its their job to stop it. I think we can all agree that changing user agreements that much without warning is fraud. If its not fraud, then why is bait and switch prohibited? Surely the customer should be knowledgeable enoug
      • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 27, 2010 @04:29PM (#32004332)

        Sorry bud, but here in the USA, we (rightly) have identified that sort of bullshit as unacceptable.

        If you don't like their TOS, don't use their service. It's that simple.

        It is NOT that simple. I cannot run a photocopying business with a TOS that states that I am entitled to sell your personal information to identity theft rings.
        You might argue "if you don't like it, don't use them and they'll go out of business." Unfortunately, some people might not notice that part of the agreement, or perhaps they were in a hurry and didn't realize it included that clause.
        This is why we make LAWS. People, on the whole, agree that certain types of bullshit are unacceptable and we aren't going to allow it.

        It's PARTICULARLY upsetting when they seem to think they can obtain your data under the terms of one agreement, and then CONTINUE to keep said data (and profit from it) after they change the agreement without notifying you or obtaining your permission.

        Exactly how long do you think it would take a bank to get the shit slapped out of them by the government for following this sort of course of action?

        They take your money under an agreement, and they are REQUIRED by federal regulation to notify you of any changes to your agreement. If they fail to do so, they are subject to some serious legal shit-fan-hitting.

        Facebook, along with EVERY OTHER COMPANY in the US, online or otherwise, should be required to notify the other person in the event of a PROPOSED change in agreement.
        If the person doesn't like the agreement, they should be allowed to collect their data (similar to collecting your money from the bank) and then any and all traces of that data should be required to be destroyed.

        Why? Because to many people, their personal data is worth more than the money they have in the bank.

        Legislation isn't the answer to many problems, but it IS the answer to stopping a lot of the corporate bullshit that goes on in this country.
        If anything, we need more laws/regulations to govern corporations, and less to govern individuals.

        An unrestrained, unregulated free market fails just as readily as one that's under complete governmental control.

      • It's not just social networking sites though. Virtually ANY site you use has one of these clauses, collects personal information about you that you expect to remain private. It's getting to the stage where if you want to use the internet (a large portion of it), you have to agree that the website can do whatever the hell they want with your data, even though they said they wouldn't.

        Take slashdot for instance:

        From http://geek.net/index.php/terms-of-use/ [geek.net]

        Geeknet reserves the right, at Geeknet's sole discretion, to change, modify, add or remove portions of these Terms periodically. Such modifications shall be effective immediately upon posting of the modified agreement to the website unless provided otherwise (e.g., when implementing major, substantive changes, Geeknet intends to provide users with up to fourteen days of advance notice). Your continued use of the Geeknet Sites following the posting of changes to these Terms will mean that you accept those changes.

        From http://geek.net/privacy-statement [geek.net]

        Geeknet reserves the right to update and change this Privacy Statement from time to time. If Geeknet makes material changes to its privacy practices, a prominent notice will be posted on this web page. Each time a user uses the Sites, the current version of the Privacy Statement applies. Accordingly, a user should check the date of this Privacy Statement (which appears at the top) and review for any changes since the last version. If a user does not agree to the Privacy Statement, the user should not use the Sites.

      • Except it's not that simple. When Ma Bell was around and people didn't like the monopoly, should they have quit using telephones? Boycotting a service like the telephone (at the time) was simply too socially, and probably economically, damaging.

        We have a similar, albeit less serious, issue here. When everyone you know, including family, uses Facebook to communicate and stay in touch, how can you just stop using it? Especially since your own action is utterly inconsequential to Facebook management, while
    • by cynyr (703126) on Tuesday April 27, 2010 @04:18PM (#32004202)
      Last i knew you could NOT make facebook purge your data from their systems after you quit. So thats the big problem here for me, if i get new terms when i log in, and i disagree, i should get a button that lets me gather a copy of my data and then make you delete it.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Why should they inconvenience their self to create a purge data option when their original TOS stated that they can collect and keep any data you enter by agreeing to said TOS. And why would you put any data about yourself online ON A SOCIAL NETWORKING WEBSITE that you would care about not having others read or store thousands of miles away and accessible from anywhere in the world. I'm facebook, i want your data to sell. I dont care what kind of button you want, you can't have it, this is my website and y

    • Click here to agree to the new condition. If you disagree we will still keep your data and sell what you agreed previously to let us sell, but you lose the service. If you agree we will rape your privacy three ways.

      The only way to win the game is not to play to begin with. Wargame got it right, only it applies to nearly all service and goods on the net.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Angst Badger (8636)

      The problem I see is that this will lead to more regulation, which leads to less innovation, more draconian laws (see DMCA) and losses of freedom. What congress needs to do is to force -everyone- not just Facebook, MySpace, etc. is that they can't just change terms and conditions whenever they see fit without making us agree to them again.

      This is a word game. You're decrying regulation while arguing for regulation, which leads me to believe that you're using "regulation" to mean laws you don't agree with. Prohibiting fraud is regulating trade. It's exactly the kind of thing that we have regulations to accomplish. Regulations can lead to "less innovation", etc., but they can also lead to less fraud, higher quality, better worker safety, and greater accountability. Knee-jerk rejection of laws because some laws are bad is an embrace of anarchy,

    • by W3bbo (727049)
      It's erroneous to believe that regulated business directly leads to stagnation. I give you a counter-example: health and safety regulations and regulations that established minimum salaries lead to the removal of manual workers from production lines to be replaced with by robots. That's an innovation caused by regulation.

      Also, "freedoms" that can easily be taken advantage of by corporate entities rarely works out in your personal interests. What the Senators are discussing limits Facebook's "freedom" to a
  • WTF?! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Capt.DrumkenBum (1173011) on Tuesday April 27, 2010 @04:06PM (#32004064)
    Isn't the whole point of Facebook to share user information.
    I mean personally I find it pretty pointless, but some people seem to like being able to share their bowel movements. (and other less useful information.)
    • by L0rdJedi (65690)

      Isn't the whole point of Facebook to share user information.

      Yes. Which is why all the hub bub about them sharing your information is completely lame. If you don't want to share your information, don't share it.

      • Re:WTF?! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 27, 2010 @04:36PM (#32004408)

        One of Facebook's defining characteristics when it was first created is that you had tight control over who saw your information. Supposedly it was restricted to your friends or people in your network. This is very different than what it is becoming, which shares information with everyone and anyone.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      It is the point of Facebook to share user information, but it is also the point that you get to control with WHOM you share that information. I personally have my account locked down to just my friends.

      For example, I don't mind sharing photos of my kids with my friends, but I don't want every pedophile on the Internet to have access to those pictures. I may post that I am enjoying San Juan, but I don't want criminals to have access to that information. Do you see the difference? It's about having contro

  • Everyone who signs up for Facebook agrees to their Terms which are clearly spelled out and say they could pull stuff like this. If you don't like the terms, don't sign up. This isn't a situation like a local utility where you don't have a choice to switch to something else.
  • User Acknowledged (Score:4, Informative)

    by stewbacca (1033764) on Tuesday April 27, 2010 @05:07PM (#32004744)

    When Facebook added this "feature", the next time I logged in I was prompted with a big-ole dialog window informing me of all the changes, the implications of privacy, and how to change it if I didn't like the new settings.

    That's all I really ask for and I don't find it unreasonable that Facebook is trying to get in as many areas as possible (through sharing everyone's stuff).

    It's really easy to cancel a Facebook account too.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Culture20 (968837)

      That's all I really ask for and I don't find it unreasonable that Facebook is trying to get in as many areas as possible (through sharing everyone's stuff).

      You don't find it unreasonable that Facebook says "Hey, come write on this piece of paper, we'll keep it right here in this safe deposit box where only the people you specify (and Facebook for purposes of directing marketing to you) have access" and then takes the safe deposit box and dumps it on the sidewalk while yelling "Free stuff! Come read this free stuff! Anyone can read it, despite what our contract with the user said earlier!"?

      • No, it's not unreasonable, because they told me last week they were going to dump all my info on the sidewalk, but they also told me how to NOT let them dump all my info on the sidewalk. I simply read the notice, then made the security setting changes that suit me. I suggest everyone else worried about it should do the same.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anubis IV (1279820)
      Not quite correct, actually. You're thinking of two or three times ago that they changed the TOS. The latest change, which was within the last week, did not come with a dialog window informing you of the changes and how to go about fixing things. All it did, in fact, was move some of your potentially private information into the publicly accessible areas of the site, without any warning, opt-in, opt-out, or any other option offered.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by whisper_jeff (680366)

      It's really easy to cancel a Facebook account too.

      Yeah. With the exception that they don't delete any of your information, it's dead easy.

      To actually _delete_ your account, you have to manually go through and delete _EVERYTHING_ which is, to say the least, time consuming. And there's no guarantee that your information is actually deleted - Facebook probably still has it and still sells it...

  • this targetting by the press and governments towards Facebook. Facebook is *entirely* optional. No-one forced you to type in 'www.facebook.com' and press enter. No-one forced you to click signup. No-one forced you to enter your information and click through the legalese. No-one forced you to upload pictures and fill in detailed personal information.

    If you're worried about Facebook sharing your personal information, DON'T PUT IT ON THERE!

    • Re:I don't get... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Culture20 (968837) on Tuesday April 27, 2010 @06:50PM (#32005730)

      this targetting by the press and governments towards Facebook. Facebook is *entirely* optional. No-one forced you to type in 'www.facebook.com' and press enter. No-one forced you to click signup. No-one forced you to enter your information and click through the legalese. No-one forced you to upload pictures and fill in detailed personal information. If you're worried about Facebook sharing your personal information, DON'T PUT IT ON THERE!

      No one forced me to go to buy lunch with a CC today, but there are strict regulations regarding whether the restaurant is allowed to share my CC number and name with business partners or make them public. No one forced me to sign a non-disclosure contract with my company, but I can't retroactively declare all of the ND info to be public and share it with my company's competitors.

      This is about Facebook changing their ToS after people shared their personal info in a way that was understood by all parties to be restricted to a select group of people (and Facebook for targeted advertising purposes only). Imagine if Facebook is allowed to get away with this. Tomorrow, Google could change their ToS to "All your email and google docs are belong to us. We can alter and repost anywhere under your name, and you agreed to it because you agreed to the 'we can change this ToS at any time' clause. Ah HAHAHA!"

I am the wandering glitch -- catch me if you can.

Working...