According to this story by Computerworld, the Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988 bans rental companies from releasing personal records of movie rentals unless a customer gives them permission to do so in writing. It may mean Facebook's privacy harangle with Beacon is solved by the opt-out they added. In fact, it likely means the opt-out they've already installed becomes legally necessary.
A blogger broke this story first. It seems Blockbuster has for sure violated the law via Beacon, but the question remains whether or not Facebook can also be held liable.
Given that Facebook is not a movie rental company - only the format via which the information was published - I'd guess the law doesn't apply to them. The law does not ban publishing movie rental information... it only bans rental places from releasing such information.
Friday, December 14, 2007
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Facebook privacy debacle is repeat headline
I'd like to say the news that has been heavily splashed everywhere about Facebook's most recent privacy-invading application is... well... news.
But it's just a repeat headline for the social networking site to invade user privacy via a new feature and then to back peddle a little after public outcry.
The News Feed was an application introduced in 2006, a few days before the site was opened to the public. It was supposed to conveniently share your information in bite-sized headlines to your friends, such as "Lacey Waymire and Dan Brown are no longer friends" and "Lacey posted more pictures." (It's just an example: Dan and I are still friends.) Trouble was, the feed would record and broadcast every move a user made on Facebook, and there was no way to turn it off.
The backlash then was immediate. More than 500,000 signatures protesting its use were collected on petitions within the first three days after the news feed was introduced. Today, the news feed has changeable options that let each user control how much information, if any, they want to share with their friends... the option is the product of two days of "nonstop coding," according to the developers who had to develop an emergency response to such a huge backlash.
Still, apparently, Facebook didn't learn... and it backed itself into nearly the same corner as before.
Beacon, an application that worked with partner sites such as blockbuster.com to publish news about who was buying what product, was introduced last month. It was designed as a sort of automated word-of-mouth advertising form. One man bought a diamond ring - a Christmas gift for his wife. She saw the news feed on her Facebook and the surprise was ruined. Many others were alarmed to see their purchasing habits posted across their friend's pages.
What I can't understand is this. Given their previous trouble with meddlesome applications that invade privacy, why didn't Facebook build in an opt-out option to this new application? It seems that Facebook, after its '06 debacle with privacy regarding the news feed, should be bending over backwards to fix its reputation.
Unfortunately, the privacy policy clearly specifies Facebook can share information about customers with affiliated companies connected to the applications you install. And Facebook is reluctant to give over privacy control to its customers when there is so much money to be made from connecting consumer to advertiser.
I guess they've got to pay the bills somehow.
Money seems a bad reason to stop listening to customer concerns about privacy again.
They say the third time is the charm. How next will the site try to capitalize on connections to friends?
But it's just a repeat headline for the social networking site to invade user privacy via a new feature and then to back peddle a little after public outcry.
The News Feed was an application introduced in 2006, a few days before the site was opened to the public. It was supposed to conveniently share your information in bite-sized headlines to your friends, such as "Lacey Waymire and Dan Brown are no longer friends" and "Lacey posted more pictures." (It's just an example: Dan and I are still friends.) Trouble was, the feed would record and broadcast every move a user made on Facebook, and there was no way to turn it off.
The backlash then was immediate. More than 500,000 signatures protesting its use were collected on petitions within the first three days after the news feed was introduced. Today, the news feed has changeable options that let each user control how much information, if any, they want to share with their friends... the option is the product of two days of "nonstop coding," according to the developers who had to develop an emergency response to such a huge backlash.
Still, apparently, Facebook didn't learn... and it backed itself into nearly the same corner as before.
Beacon, an application that worked with partner sites such as blockbuster.com to publish news about who was buying what product, was introduced last month. It was designed as a sort of automated word-of-mouth advertising form. One man bought a diamond ring - a Christmas gift for his wife. She saw the news feed on her Facebook and the surprise was ruined. Many others were alarmed to see their purchasing habits posted across their friend's pages.
What I can't understand is this. Given their previous trouble with meddlesome applications that invade privacy, why didn't Facebook build in an opt-out option to this new application? It seems that Facebook, after its '06 debacle with privacy regarding the news feed, should be bending over backwards to fix its reputation.
Unfortunately, the privacy policy clearly specifies Facebook can share information about customers with affiliated companies connected to the applications you install. And Facebook is reluctant to give over privacy control to its customers when there is so much money to be made from connecting consumer to advertiser.
I guess they've got to pay the bills somehow.
Money seems a bad reason to stop listening to customer concerns about privacy again.
They say the third time is the charm. How next will the site try to capitalize on connections to friends?
Sunday, December 2, 2007
LiveJournal: Private space, not public forum for free speech
LiveJournal, a free blogging Web site started in 1999, has just been sold to a Russian media company known as SUP Fabrik.
A deal like this - for an unspecified amount, and to a foreign media company whose investor is rumored to be Putin-friendly in a country already known for its censorship - recalls to mind that free speech rights are not international. Nor are they guaranteed when an American private company controls the content delivery method.
In America, free speech is most protected in public places. The courts have said over the years that the maximum protection to the right to free speech is given in these public forums, such as sidewalks, parks, and streets. However, absolute free speech protection is not a right on private property - some storefronts, for example. Each state differs in its definition of which malls are public places and which are private.
The internet isn't really a place. And it can certainly be argued that LiveJournal is a private business; one that puts substantial resources into providing the service, the storage space, the servers, etc. that allow users to express their opinions.
But it can also be argued that the free blog site is absolutely a public forum for expression, where assembly and discussion take place daily. Perhaps it is a sort of virtual "central park," with sidewalks freely available to all, and an irreplaceable service to the people who use it every day.
LJ has a long Terms of Service document that says "LiveJournal will generally not place a limit on the type or appropriateness of user content within journals," then goes on to list many limits on that content. Under the ToS, an account can be suspended or deactivated for posting anything that is copyrighted, harmful, indecent, pornographic, unlawful, vulgar, hateful, threatening, advertising, invading of someone's privacy, and more.
LJ also has what it calls an "Abuse team," which investigates blogs that are reported as being inappropriate. It has chosen to take an active role in monitoring and removing content that violates its ToS.
In May this year, LJ stirred a controversy by suspending about 500 accounts that were mostly fan fiction that may have included words like "incest" or "rape." Later, LJ apologized for shutting down the accounts and reinstated about half of them. In August LJ clarified that harmful content was:
The problem may lie in the fact that it takes resources to run a Web site, and understandably, those should be protected. But it costs money to keep a street or park maintained and functioning as a public place. Taxes collectively pay for those. It could be that, to provide a public space free of private speech restrictions, America will need to allocate resources to that end.
However it's done, commercial interests should not be allowed to trample completely on free speech rights that are so intrinsically important to the Internet, and to the country. Suspension of 500 accounts by LJ (or by any other blogging Web site) is a small number, but is still a number of people whose free speech rights might be getting trampled. It's for those few that the First Amendment exists at all.
A deal like this - for an unspecified amount, and to a foreign media company whose investor is rumored to be Putin-friendly in a country already known for its censorship - recalls to mind that free speech rights are not international. Nor are they guaranteed when an American private company controls the content delivery method.
In America, free speech is most protected in public places. The courts have said over the years that the maximum protection to the right to free speech is given in these public forums, such as sidewalks, parks, and streets. However, absolute free speech protection is not a right on private property - some storefronts, for example. Each state differs in its definition of which malls are public places and which are private.
The internet isn't really a place. And it can certainly be argued that LiveJournal is a private business; one that puts substantial resources into providing the service, the storage space, the servers, etc. that allow users to express their opinions.
But it can also be argued that the free blog site is absolutely a public forum for expression, where assembly and discussion take place daily. Perhaps it is a sort of virtual "central park," with sidewalks freely available to all, and an irreplaceable service to the people who use it every day.
LJ has a long Terms of Service document that says "LiveJournal will generally not place a limit on the type or appropriateness of user content within journals," then goes on to list many limits on that content. Under the ToS, an account can be suspended or deactivated for posting anything that is copyrighted, harmful, indecent, pornographic, unlawful, vulgar, hateful, threatening, advertising, invading of someone's privacy, and more.
LJ also has what it calls an "Abuse team," which investigates blogs that are reported as being inappropriate. It has chosen to take an active role in monitoring and removing content that violates its ToS.
In May this year, LJ stirred a controversy by suspending about 500 accounts that were mostly fan fiction that may have included words like "incest" or "rape." Later, LJ apologized for shutting down the accounts and reinstated about half of them. In August LJ clarified that harmful content was:
Content that encourages or advocates hate crimes, the abuse of children in any form, or rape, even if the content itself is not illegal and may be protected by the First Amendment. This portion of the policy reflects the especially reprehensible nature of these activities; users who encourage or advocate these acts, regardless of their motivation, are simply not welcome on LiveJournal.Freedom of speech gives the unpopular speech an equal right to exist in public space. But if a large blogging company is deemed private space, what on the internet is actually deemed public? So many of the ways content is shared are owned by private companies - YouTube, MySpace, Blogger, Facebook... There are internet service providers who provide Web site hosting services. Could those sites be also considered private space? Can any site be considered public?
The problem may lie in the fact that it takes resources to run a Web site, and understandably, those should be protected. But it costs money to keep a street or park maintained and functioning as a public place. Taxes collectively pay for those. It could be that, to provide a public space free of private speech restrictions, America will need to allocate resources to that end.
However it's done, commercial interests should not be allowed to trample completely on free speech rights that are so intrinsically important to the Internet, and to the country. Suspension of 500 accounts by LJ (or by any other blogging Web site) is a small number, but is still a number of people whose free speech rights might be getting trampled. It's for those few that the First Amendment exists at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)