Frustration with the constant tweaks to Facebook’s privacy policy is nothing new — but experts say they believe the situation is getting worse because now it’s a challenge to even understand what a Facebook user is agreeing to.
When average users get upset about Facebook’s policies, we have limited options. We can show our outrage online, we can send Facebook a strongly worded note or we can opt out of the service. But Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., isn’t an average user, and, as we note in the lead story of today’s SmartBrief on Social Media, he’s begun to call for regulation.
Schumer says he wants the network to make it easier for users to understand how their personal information is being used. He’s asked the Federal Trade Commission to look into the issue. Schumer says that if that doesn’t work, he’ll craft legislation to achieve the same end.
Does Facebook need to be regulated? Would an FTC rule on disclosing data sharing improve the average Facebook user’s experience? Is legislation the better bet?
Image credit, James Steidl, via Shutterstock
Twitter
Facebook
Linkedin
RSS
I think something has to be done. I dislike the federal authority doing it and believe states should lead on privacy rights, which bit by bit will force Facebook and others to comply, but given the current model more pragmatically speaking the federal authority will need to be the party really to drive this. The reason is as I wrote in the CNet article on this same thing, "…this "you are opted in by default" is a recurring mistake the industry seems to be deliberately embracing and only backing off from when challenged – witness Facebook as discussed here or Google when Wave went to a broader audience wherein they made their big mistake of "helping" users by auto-revealing contacts. I can only imagine Facebook's "surprise" at Senator Schumer's interest reflects either rhetorical political maneuvering or, if not that, frighteningly bald stupidity (and I don't think they're stupid, so it's a willful game of "how far can we push people's information public without looking like we are"). And then we also have, as referenced above, rather technical and all-too-detailed schemas for users to have to wade through in order to ensure the privacy level they desire. Essentially, the industry has miscalculated and has in effect not merely invited but created even some urgency around government oversight. Mr. Zuckerberg et. al. have had an opportunity to strike a better balance and to, while pushing living publicly, create easy tools to ensure privacy, and they've not only blown it but demonstrated callous disregard in this arena."
While there is a valid argument re letting the free market sort it out, the free market has little to no interest in actually doing so, at least in the mid-term as until both consumer enlightenment *and* commercial motivations come together there simply is not a solid motivation for a social-based business to stress privacy rights – as we've seen in actual practice, as opposed to any theory.
(By the way, when I attempt to use Facebook Connect (no comments re irony, please, haha) I get an error "SmartBlog on Social Media is under construction. Please try again later.".
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Mark Harai. Mark Harai said: RT @sbosm Should Facebook be regulated? http://bit.ly/dweUPt [...]
No!!!!! No No No No No. Facebook might be confusing to some, to many. Does that warrant government interference? NO NO NO NO NO NO NO a thousand times NO!!!!!!
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by JasonMMurphy: Should Facebook be regulated? – Frustration with the constant tweaks to Facebook’s privacy policy is nothing new b… http://ow.ly/17bX7f...
Given that Facebook's operations cross state lines, there's zero argument for state authority. Thank heavens. Facebook, like any intelligent company involved with interstate commerce, would far prefer one set of rules that apply to everybody equally, vs. a welter of different, contrrary and perhaps even contradictory regulations constructed piecemeal across our great 50. As for "the government" not being able to handle anything, that's simply a thoughtless comment; our elected officials handle things all the time, though it can never be to everyone's liking. The comment about Wall Street corruption is particularly ignorant, as that corruption was possible exactly because there was not enough government regulation. As for fossils, we've heard that argument many times before, as when that fossil Warren Buffett called out the (then high-flying) Internet companies in the late '90s for not having real and sustainable business models. How'd that work out for them? Now, I understand, this is a social media blog, not a financial blog. But I'd expect a higher level of discourse nonetheless.
Companies crossing state lines are still subject to state-specific regulations, and companies do have to deal with differences across the states. So I don't think there's "zero" argument; in point of fact, states have significant leeway in how they choose to regulate businesses. Our company functions in Oregon, Massachusetts, and California; all three have different privacy regulations.
YES! How can there be any other answer? I know the government is incapable, that doesn't mean that the answer is NO for that reason alone.
My recent post Women over 45, Your Personal SPF: Determining Your Number
I think Facebook should be "observed" for now…not "regulated". More importantly, everyone in our Government should get a crash course on the Internet in general, as I don't think 75% know what the hell Facebook is.
The government can't handle regulating things that are tangible, i.e. Wall Street Corruption, Corruption in Congress, and keeping their marriage vows. How are they going to even consider regulating something that most of the fossils in congress don't even understand?
I understand the frustration, but I think there are more important things that may need more attention. Facebook is a free service, and naturally Mark Zuckerberg is out to make money any way he can. As long as the service is free, we should expect more things like this. And if we don't like it, we should cancel our accounts. People need to quit feeling that they're entitled to Facebook.
My recent post Be An Optimist, But Don’t Be A Fool
I don't think it's an issue of entitlement, it's an issue of reasonable expectations and the lack of reasonable contractual transparency regarding privacy. If Facebook were more openly saying "you have no expectation of privacy on this network" that might be one thing. So far, they try to play it each way, and their agreement with users is dodgy at best, at least in execution.
In Europe we are generally quite concerned with what services like Facebook do with people's personal data. For instance, Germany has a special terms of use agreement with Facebook, and the EU is also looking into the matter.
Start for instance herehttp://ec.europa.eu/information_society/eyouguide… if you want to know more.
Anne
Facebook allows users to set their own privacy settings, and prevent leakage of their data. The problem is we're a quick fix society, reading through pages and pages of terms and conditions isn't something that the majority is willing to do. So we stamp our feet and cry and demand government regulation because we're too lazy to read the instructions and information ourselves. It's understandable that people might try something without reading into it too much but you wouldn't drive a car without "reading the instructions", why should using the internet be any different?
My recent post How To Successfully Utilise Twitter & Social Media To Market Your Services
australia says no to stopping people like me molesting young women on facebook. in the real world i am not accepted