Facebook facing a revolt from users alarmed by the company's cavalier attitude

[h3rm35]

This petition might work, as it's not going to the Gvt - it's going to a business that needs people in order to function.

Dear ACLU Member,

According to news reports, Facebook has called an "all hands" meeting today to discuss its privacy policies. That's because they are facing a brewing revolt among Facebook users alarmed by the company's cavalier attitude toward protecting your privacy.

In recent months, Facebook has rolled out some very privacy-unfriendly practices, from the "privacy transition" that took away privacy controls to "instant personalization" that instantly shares your personal information with third party pages without your consent.

At every step, the ACLU has been there to push back. Why? Because the less control you have over your own personal information, the more likely that information could end up in the wrong hands—including the government's.

Facebook's founder Mark Zuckerberg has claimed that "the default is social." That means Facebook starts from the assumption that your personal information will be distributed far and wide without your consent. But, tens of thousands of you have signed the ACLU petition to make it clear that you want to share with your friends, not a spying government.

Facebook is feeling the heat. It's time to hold the company's feet to the fire and take back control of our personal information.

You—not Facebook—should decide who to trust with private information about your political interests, sexual orientation, and more.

Sign the ACLU Facebook privacy petition. Make it clear you want to share with the people you choose, not the ones Facebook chooses for you.

Today's reported all-hands meeting at Facebook means we've got their attention. Let's keep the pressure on until Facebook adopts policies that respect the privacy of its users.

Sincerely,


Anthony D. Romero
Executive Director
ACLU

P.S. Visit Demand Your dotRights for tips on how to navigate the recent Facebook changes.

[ToddTraf]

Is it really that great you can't just endorse some new service with privacy protection and boycott facebooks Bullshit? The damage is done.
Bring forward some kind of class action suit for all the users and the money that was made with their info.

[Melchor]

Does this make me trendy for never signing up or do I have to make an account and cancel it?

[Hans Olo]

(05-14-2010 04:32 AM)ToddTraf Wrote:  Bring forward some kind of class action suit for all the users and the money that was made with their info.

That's a good idea! Count me in!

[---]

facebook could be utilised to for creating wild goose chases.
SWIM is having a 24 hour rave tonight in the woods outside of town and there will be probably people selling drugs there and trading anti govt. propaganda, they really hope the police don't hear about it and allocate time and resources trying to bust it.
I used it for a while but it is so clear that it is an appendage of the intelligence gathering community that I use it no more.
So many people have compromised themselves by essentially handing over full description of their social networks. bad guys too.

[h3rm35]

Original URL: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/14/...cy_rebuke/
EU privacy watchdogs say Facebook changes 'unacceptable'

Working party issues rebuke over default settings tweak

By OUT-LAW.COM

Posted in Law, 14th May 2010 07:41 GMT

Europe's privacy watchdogs have issued a rebuke to Facebook, telling the social networking site that changes it made to the site's privacy settings late last year were 'unacceptable'.

Facebook faced criticism over the changes when they were made last December, and more when it announced recently that it would allow business partners to make more use of members' data.

The Article 29 Working Party, the committee comprising the data protection regulators of the European Union's 27 member states, has added its voice to the criticisms and has written to Facebook to express its alarm at the changes.

"It is unacceptable that the company fundamentally changed the default settings on its social-networking platform to the detriment of a user," said a statement from the Working Party. "Facebook made the change only days after the company and other social networking sites providers participated at a hearing during the Article 29 Working Party’s plenary meeting in November 2009."

Facebook's changes last year involved changing the default privacy settings on its service. Though users were asked to confirm the changes, default settings are seen as important because many users simply confirm the pre-selected options.

Facebook users can set their profiles, which contain status updates, messages, pictures and more, to be seen by anyone on the internet or just by members of networks they join or just by their 'friends' within the service.

Users who accepted Facebook's new defaults found that much more of their information was available to everyone or to members of very large networks than before. They found that details of their family, relationships and employer were available to the whole internet. Accepting Facebook's changes would also make their birthdays and religious views available to any Facebook user who is a friend with one of their friends, and their phone numbers, physical addresses and email addresses available to all their friends.

Facebook claimed that the changes were a simplification, but digital rights group the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) said that they created "new and serious privacy problems".

"These new 'privacy' changes are clearly intended to push Facebook users to publicly share even more information than before," said the EFF's Kevin Bankston at the time. "Even worse, the changes will actually reduce the amount of control that users have over some of their personal data."

The Article 29 Working Party has now added its voice to the criticism. It said that in its letter to Facebook it had emphasised that default settings should protect, not expose, users' private information.

"The Working Party emphasised the need for a default setting in which access to the profile information and information about the connections of a user is limited to self-selected contacts," said its statement. "Any further access, such as by search engines, should be an explicit choice of the user."

The Working Party has written to 20 social networking companies to highlight concerns it has about the operation of services overall.

"The letters … address the issue of third-party applications," the statement said. "Providers of social network services should grant users a maximum of control about which profile data can be accessed by a third party application on a case-by-case basis.

"The Article 29 Working Party also raised the issue of data of third persons contained in users' profiles. Providers of social networking sites should be aware that it would be a breach of data protection law if they use personal data of other individuals contained in a user profile for commercial purposes if these other individuals have not given their free and unambiguous consent," it said.

The changes are also the subject of a complaint by privacy activist group the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), which has complained about them to US consumer regulator the Federal Trade Commission.

"These changes violate user expectations, diminish user privacy, and contradict Facebook’s own representations. These business practices are Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practice," said its complaint (pdf) (http://epic.org/privacy/facebook/EPIC_FT...aint.pdf).

Facebook last month announced a new initiative at its F8 conference designed to make even more use of individuals' data than before. Users' preferences, likes and activity would be visible to Facebook business partner sites.

While Facebook called the developments 'social plug-ins' and claimed they would improve people's online experiences, users and privacy activists have expressed concerns about the implications of the changes.

(http://www.out-law.com/)Copyright © 2010, OUT-LAW.com (http://www.out-law.com/)

OUT-LAW.COM is part of international law firm Pinsent Masons.