Facebook owners did not expect that it would get this much attention, but after they tried silently to change their privacy polices, complaints and criticism flooded the blogosphere and the backlash continue to expand. According to PC World, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) is preparing to file a formal complaint with the Federal Trade Commission over the social network's updated licenses.
Aside from EPIC, more than 38,000 Facebook users have joined a user group protesting the change, and countless blogs and news sites have written extensively about their concerns. The issue comes down to a couple of simple alterations within the company's terms of use that, it would seem, give Facebook eternal ownership of any personal content - even if the owner decides to delete their account.
The changes were actually made in early February but not widely noticed until 15 February 2009, when The Consumerist's Chris Walters stumbled upon the subtly shifted language. The section in question explains how Facebook has an "irrevocable, perpetual" license to use the account owner's "name, likeness, and image" in essentially any way, including within promotions or external advertising.
That clause, Walters noted, wasn't new. What had changed was that a sentence at the end of the paragraph was now mysteriously missing. The deleted line stated that the license would "automatically expire" if the owner removed their content. With that line omitted, Facebook's license to use the owner's content is simply "perpetual" and "irrevocable," even decades after they delete the stuff.
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has attempted to calm the concerns, posting a blog entry stating that "people own their information" and that Facebook "wouldn't share [it] in a way you wouldn't want." As an example of why the controversial clause is needed in its updated form, Zuckerberg explains that even if the account owner were to delete their account, any messages they had sent to a friend would still remain in their inbox. Hence, Facebook requires the expanded rights to make sure that could happen.
This seems fair, but something does not quite add up. Could everyone be just simply overreacting?
A check with other social network accounts seems to justify the 'overreaction'. For instance, MySpace's terms of use agreement grants the company the license to use a non-private content only within MySpace-related services. However, once the account has been deleted, MySpace will stop distribution as soon as practicable.
Twitter, on the other hand, "claim[s] no intellectual property rights over the material you provide" and that "you can remove your profile at any time by deleting your account." While, YouTube limits its license to use a content at will. Their license states that it will "terminate within a commercially reasonable time after you remove or delete your user videos."
If this is the case with other social networks, will Facebook reamend the latest changes to assure its avid users? Only time and Zuckerberg can tell.
Aside from EPIC, more than 38,000 Facebook users have joined a user group protesting the change, and countless blogs and news sites have written extensively about their concerns. The issue comes down to a couple of simple alterations within the company's terms of use that, it would seem, give Facebook eternal ownership of any personal content - even if the owner decides to delete their account.
The changes were actually made in early February but not widely noticed until 15 February 2009, when The Consumerist's Chris Walters stumbled upon the subtly shifted language. The section in question explains how Facebook has an "irrevocable, perpetual" license to use the account owner's "name, likeness, and image" in essentially any way, including within promotions or external advertising.
That clause, Walters noted, wasn't new. What had changed was that a sentence at the end of the paragraph was now mysteriously missing. The deleted line stated that the license would "automatically expire" if the owner removed their content. With that line omitted, Facebook's license to use the owner's content is simply "perpetual" and "irrevocable," even decades after they delete the stuff.
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has attempted to calm the concerns, posting a blog entry stating that "people own their information" and that Facebook "wouldn't share [it] in a way you wouldn't want." As an example of why the controversial clause is needed in its updated form, Zuckerberg explains that even if the account owner were to delete their account, any messages they had sent to a friend would still remain in their inbox. Hence, Facebook requires the expanded rights to make sure that could happen.
This seems fair, but something does not quite add up. Could everyone be just simply overreacting?
A check with other social network accounts seems to justify the 'overreaction'. For instance, MySpace's terms of use agreement grants the company the license to use a non-private content only within MySpace-related services. However, once the account has been deleted, MySpace will stop distribution as soon as practicable.
Twitter, on the other hand, "claim[s] no intellectual property rights over the material you provide" and that "you can remove your profile at any time by deleting your account." While, YouTube limits its license to use a content at will. Their license states that it will "terminate within a commercially reasonable time after you remove or delete your user videos."
If this is the case with other social networks, will Facebook reamend the latest changes to assure its avid users? Only time and Zuckerberg can tell.
Wow. I had no idea about this at all! I hate the idea that any photos I may have posted of my children could be used at will by Facebook, even after I remove them.
ReplyDeleteNo news yet from Facebook on what are they gonna about this. I hope they make some changes soon and address the concerns of their members.
ReplyDelete