Senators Tell Facebook To Quit Sharing Users' Info 256
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.
It's kind of sad... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
"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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you improve on a 100% filibuster rate?
Re:It's kind of sad... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
You're suggesting he didn't write political comedy for SNL?
Re:It's kind of sad... (Score:5, Funny)
No I think he's suggesting SNL was once a comedy program. Personally, I find that difficult to believe.
Re: (Score:2)
If the highlight of their "comedy" is the "I'm on a boat" sketch... *shudder*. They stopped being funny about a decade ago.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re:It's kind of sad... (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
And she's probably registered to vote in each country. She apparently likes that: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/08/ann-coulter-under-investi_n_165007.html [huffingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Ann Coulter is Franken's equal? What kind of Bizzaro world did I just land in?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're absolutely right! Ann has been much funnier than Al for YEARS!!!
Re:It's kind of sad... (Score:5, Insightful)
Having government take care of the needy absolves us of the moral responsibility to give a damn anymore. We can get our warm fuzzies by pulling a lever instead of putting in our own time and effort to improve the human condition.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Thing is, "moral responsibility" or not, most people still won't help the helpless.
I'm badly disabled and damn glad I live somewhere more civilized than the US - the chances I'd get the very expensive medical care I need in the US are... kinda low. Made worse by the fact I can't work.
That bullshit is a mile deep (Score:5, Insightful)
And how do you propose people get together to improve the human condition? Maybe they could organize into some sort of group that would decide to use shared resources to accomplish that task, and give their approval or disapproval in some sort of democratic fashion.
Now you might be able to realize that the entire purpose of a democratic government is to allow people to decide how to best use their nation's resources. Some people get their warm fuzzies from denying that this is the case.
Do you know how much good research is done by the CDC? NASA? Publicly funded universities? We wouldn't be communicating right now with computers, or over the internet, if it weren't for government spending to improve the human condition.
The goals stated are quite cheap compared to the profiteering war empire the founders warned against becoming. You just have to pull your head out of your ass and look around.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless you suggest we euthanize anyone who arrives at a hospital without insurance, then you aren't actually going to address the issue. When it's your mother or father in a life or death situation, I'll bet that the concept of "my" resources and "your" resources become less of a problem.
"Yeah, I'm sorry my mom had to die. But I didn't want her to consume any of her neighbor's resources."
or
"Yeah, well, the kid's mom didn't have any money and died during child birth. It needed a $20,000 operation to save it'
Re: (Score:2)
Bollocks. Money is time. I'm giving a part of my paid time to the needy, indirectly.
In fact, it's better, because eight people giving one hour per day of their time provides much lower results than one person working full time. In fact, isn't that one of the points of the Mythical Man-Month?
I agree we should take more care about our close relatives - I despise most people who put their (grand)parents in retirement homes.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It's kind of sad... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
As long as the guy who wants to help people isn't doing so by shaking me down for the money to do it, it's all the same for me.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
First of all, Ann Coulter is worthless human being. She has capitalized on the tragedy of 9/11 by preaching hate. She's nothing more than a reeking blonde vulture, desperately clawing at the carcass of terrorism for the last bits of money she can dig out, all the while claiming she's the only one who cares. Anyway.
You do not need the government to help the poor, downtrodden, unfortunate, or anyone else down on their luck.
You don't need the government to fight wars, do you? Just get together with your friends, build an aircraft carrier, manufacture all the weapons, and drive that shit over there. Government would o
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe that appeals to a certain portion of the population.
People get the leaders they deserve.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
As Jon Stewart says... (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps Senator Franken thinks the same thing?
Re:As Jon Stewart says... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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!
Re:It's kind of sad... (Score:4, Insightful)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
i dont care either way (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Kip Drordy has a Slashdot account?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Kip Drordy is on /. too? Wow.
Problem (Score:5, Interesting)
The major problem I see here is that Facebook is allowed to change its terms without notifying anyone.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem is that most of the Facebook users didn't closed their account when it happened.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Problem (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you expect from a sociopath that stole the idea from his clients?
Re: (Score:2)
> 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'
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
"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)
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:
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Problem (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
"I have altered the deal. Pray that I don't alter it further."
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Allow us to "opt-in" (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Allow us to "opt-in" (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
The USA Today article contains this observation from the senators:
"Facebook should change the rules so users have to proactively opt into the information sharing program, the senators said."
If they think opt-in is the best solution, how about revisiting the 2003 "CAN-SPAM [wikipedia.org]" bill and changing it from opt-out to opt-in as well?
CAN we SPAM? Yes, we can!
Re: (Score:2)
Only one of the four senators mentioned in the summary or the article voted for CAN-SPAM. And that one senator now has a daughter in law school who provides him with information about technology law that he likely didn't have in 2003.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Agreed. I closed down my Facebook account because of this. And, yes, I did actually have a few friends.
Why not just limit the stuff in your profile to stuff that you don't care about being public? Hell, you could even use a fake name, fake information and even a fake "throwaway" email address. Then they would be sharing fake data. I don't have a problem with that.
Free economy, regulate fraud (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Free economy, regulate fraud (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re:Free economy, regulate fraud (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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
"without making us agree to them again. " (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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,
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Ah. New regulations to the rescue. I can see you've put a lot of thought into this.
How is it a new regulation? The definition of a contract is:
a. An agreement between two or more parties, especially one that is written and enforceable by law. See Synonyms at bargain. b. The writing or document containing such an agreement.
From http://www.thefreedictionary.com/contract [thefreedictionary.com] . How can you agree to something if you don't know what it is? It stops being an agreement. If I agree to pay you $50, we both have an agreement I will give you $50. If I change that to paying you $25 and show up with $25 when you expect $50, chances are you won't be too happy because the agreement is broken. Its not a new regulation, it simply keeps the definition of contract and agreement togeth
WTF?! (Score:3, Funny)
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.)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
Becoming? Don't you mean became?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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
IIRC (Score:2)
User Acknowledged (Score:4, Informative)
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)
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!"?
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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...
I don't get... (Score:2)
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)
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!"
Re:turnabout? (Score:5, Informative)
The Senators aren't telling people how to use Facebook, they're telling Facebook how (not) to use their customer's data.
Re: (Score:2)
Or their impression is, "Some stuffy old guys are like totally pissed off that I want to have my cell number in my profile."
All the while, not really thinking about the possibility that someone is harvesting/selling/whatever with that information because it's "their" page. Quite simply - it took me a long time to understand why someone would care what sort of information I post out there than can be traced back to me for many (il)legit reasons. I obviously learned that lesson after creating my slashdot ID
Re:turnabout? (Score:5, Insightful)
And you expect most Facebook users to discern that difference?
No, most users are apparently clueless and stupid and government regulation is required to protect them since they won't do it themselves.
The people who would argue with that are probably the same people who think that a democratically-elected group of legislators passing a bill which the majority agreed with means that we're living under a tyranny. Possibly even the same people who don't understand the difference between socialism, communism, fascism, and the Nazis.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, most users are apparently clueless and stupid and government regulation is required to protect them since they won't do it themselves.
Maybe they just have different priorities or don't care or whatever. But it's easier for you to assume they're just not as smart as you. That said, if facebook did an about face on their privacy statements, that's probably fraud. No need for any additional laws.
The people who would argue with that are probably the same people who think that a democratically-elected gro
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they just have different priorities or don't care or whatever. But it's easier for you to assume they're just not as smart as you.
Regardless of what the cause is, if people aren't going to take steps to protect themselves, and if the government has an obligation to protect its people, then the only solution is regulation. I'm not trying to argue in favor of more government regulation, I'm just saying that if those assumptions hold, then the conclusion is more regulation. The opposite of government regulation is personal responsibility, and there's a notable lack of that floating around lately.
tyranny of the majority
"Tyranny of the majority" is just anothe
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I do not believe, the government has the obligation to protect people from hurting themselves.
They aren't hurting themselves, they're being hurt by Facebook.
if joe blow says that I can't dance on saturday nights(completely random example), and it so does the majority, bam it's voted, they win, that's tyranny.
Tyranny for whom, for Joe Blow? Does Joe feel like he's living under a tyrant? If they have absolute power by definition, then why do they need to vote? Is it because they don't have absolute power? Is a group of people considered to be a single ruler? You quoted the definition of a tyranny, and then you went and gave an example which bears no relationship to a single ruler with absolute power. Any group of more than one person voting on a
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
If immigration services had done their jobs in the summer of 2001 there woulnd't have been a 9/11 attack. Most of the 9/11 Hijackers were here on EXPIRED student visas. If the FBI had done their job they could have prevented it as well.
So what do we do?
We create several more layers of obsfication for the problem. We pass a patriot act that screw over the average american on civil rights, we create another bloated beuracracy in the form of Homeland Security.
What should have happened is that after the c
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They should have told American that they are dumbasses if they share all of their most personal thoughts online and if they don't want to the whole world to know what colour of poopie they made this morning the idiot users need to lock their profile the hell down.
Karma be damned. You're stupid, or hopefully just ignorant of what Facebook has been doing this last few years.
When I signed up for FB three and a half years ago, it was fairly easy to lock your profile down, setting all of the information about yourself to be "friends only". They even tightened it further and created a friend-groups mechanism and allowed you to assign special rights to specific wall posts (or types of posts) to just certain groups of friends (work, old friends, current, etc).
Then, th