“You Have Zero Privacy Anyway. Get Over It”–That Goes Double on Social Networks
by Kara Swisher
Posted on February 16, 2009 at 5:36 PM PT
When Sun Microsystems (JAVA) Gadfly-in-Chief Scott McNealy made his infamous statement about online privacy in 1999, there was a horrified hubbub at the time that he had the audacity to say such a thing.
You know, that he actually uttered such a terrible thing as the truth.
What a shock then that everyone is now in yet another tizzy about Facebook changes to its Terms of Service, which pretty much state the obvious again by noting that Facebook archives info you posted, even if you quit the service.
As in, you probably can’t delete it.
No, you can’t–because you shared it, whether it be a photo, an email, a Wall post, whatever, already.
Because the fact of the matter is–since the moment the first caveman sent the first email to another Neanderthal–there has never been true online privacy for anyone who has chosen to participate in this highly interactive medium.
Here’s the key definition of interactive: “mutually or reciprocally active.”
That means once you send something to others, it is out there in cyberspace forever, never ever to return.
And that goes double on social-networking sites, where–let’s be honest–people egregiously overshare and then get all righteous when it is explained to them that sharing means, um, sharing.
As in: You cannot take it back, if you have shared with 476 of your closest “friends,” your bikini shots from Cabo.
Now, BoomTown has learned to live with some very unfortunate haircut choices preserved forever online and does not often agree with Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg (I and everyone else slapped him silly on the Beacon debacle until he gave in, for example).
But he is technically right on this, even if Facebook could have done a much better job communicating the changes it made to its ToS, especially since ToS controversies are the Bermuda Triangle of the online arena.
This lack of clarity has always a major Facebook weakness, but it was the same for AOL–now owned by Time Warner (TWX)–back in the day when it was raising privacy red flags all the time.
But that does not make Facebook wrong, as Zuckerberg finally said clearly in a post on Facebook:
People want full ownership and control of their information so they can turn off access to it at any time. At the same time, people also want to be able to bring the information others have shared with them—like email addresses, phone numbers, photos and so on—to other services and grant those services access to those people’s information. These two positions are at odds with each other. There is no system today that enables me to share my email address with you and then simultaneously lets me control who you share it with and also lets you control what services you share it with.”
Zuckerberg then notes that users are just going to have to trust services like Facebook with their data, which is up to the individual to decide before posting whatever online.
And, if regrets come later? Well, try this quote from the great playwright Arthur Miller: “Maybe all one can do is hope to end up with the right regrets.”
Comments
I respectfully disagree. The context in which I share information online, as in the physical world, needs to be honored. If I share financial information with my bank or my brokerage that exchange is subject to specific constraints. If I share information with a close group of friends (I do not have 476) on Facebook, it is subject to the term of service in place.
And that brings us to the crux of this issue – that the terms were changed, how they were changed, and how they now vary from standards established elsewhere. While I’ll spare you detail on each point, I’ll highlight two critical aspects of the TOS changes.
First, the new terms grant Facebook irrevocable license to my content. That is, regardless of how unacceptable subsequent TOS changes may be, the content I publish is theirs. No backsies, ever.
Second, the grant is transferable. That is, no matter much I trust Facebook, they have the right to transfer their license to ALL my content to ANY and EVERY partner they deem fit now or in the future.
In his blog post, Mark Zuckerberg outlined his rationale, and it is good. The challenge is that the specific TOS implementation is as overbroad as the communication of those changes is inadequate.
Posted by Michael Downs at February 16th, 2009 at 6:57 pmIn modern America hypocrisy is the cardinal sin. It’s OK if you murder someone, as long as you have never spoken out against murder. (Well, it’s almost that bad.)
Facebook time and again says all of its IDs are real people, when clearly they are not. They say it’s for your REAL friends, not the first 6000 people you made contact with on the Internet (but Scoble and others prove that untrue every day).
Finally they go on and on about how Facebook is more safe, secure, and respectful of their users rights than all the others. Except when they’re not.
If there weren’t something rotten in their ethics they wouldn’t have to keep talking about them. Not to mention the known ethical gymnastics surrounding the company’s genesis.
Posted by Mac Beach at February 16th, 2009 at 8:48 pmI also disagree on two points. Firstly, the privacy, I understand that posting things online such as this comment means it’s out there for all to see and use. But within the Facebook site, I have privacy settings and selected friends, the new TOS effectively circumvent those choices. Before, I could post a photo knowing only my friends, whom I trust, could see it. Now when I do that Facebook can legally publish that photo to the world to promote itself.
Secondly, ownership, again I get the concept of sharing does pass on ownership, but I’m choosing to share with ‘friends’ not some corporate organization (Facebook). But also, if I chose to post a video directly, or via Blip, that I want to freely share, Facebook now has the right to ignore any copyright or license I apply and sell the video.
It’s one thing knowing your stuff is out there on the web, it’s another to knowingly let Facebook steal it for their own potential gain.
I agree with Michael Downs though, it could be worded differently and communicated in a much friendlier way.
Posted by Sam Peckham at February 17th, 2009 at 4:51 amKara, Privacy is one issue, and copyrights are another issue. I will not upload Rocketboom videos to Facebook because then Facebook will own the rights to use the IP forever. Thats not fair and not needed. On YouTube, they do not get perpetual rights over my intellectual property.
You can talk about your haircuts all day, but you are missing the point. Its very frustrating to watch you be so sassy and silly and then speak with objectivity (e.g “But he is technically right on this”), when you are messing with dangerous stuff here that you do not understand.
Stop with the facts when you dont have the big picture.
You are saying (and thus advising your readers) that its okay for content creators to sign away their copyrights. That is very irresponsible of you.
Readers: Would you send in copyright claims for your music and add Facebook as an equal right-sharer on your work? Owne by Lennon/McCartney and Facebook? If you upload to Facebook, you are doing that.
Posted by andrew baron at February 17th, 2009 at 5:50 amKara:
Consumer privacy and protection should be a core value of the digital media experience–not a hostage to an ever changing Terms of Service designed to help a site better “monetize” its user base.
Facebook and other commercial sites must be required to meaningfully inform users of the data that’s collected and how its used, esp. for marketing/advertising/profiling/targeting purposes. Right now, Facebook, MySpace and many others have built a business model based on extensive data mining and targeting of users. None of this is transparent; users don’t have much control over it.
That’s why Congress, the FTC and state policymakers need to enact rules helping bring openness, user control, and candor to the online marketing system. This latest Facebook incident illustrates why policy safeguards are required.
Posted by Jeff Chester at February 17th, 2009 at 11:55 amThere is a difference between privacy and ownership. Facebook users are not upset about lack of privacy – they are upset about Facebook claiming ownership over their content.
The new Facebook TOS give Facebook the right to re-publish and re-distribute content posted by users indefinitely. They will find that many users – especially the business users that may eventually lead to a revenue stream for Facebook – will think hard about how much content/value they add to the site until this gets resolved.
Posted by Tonia Ries at February 17th, 2009 at 12:40 pmLogically, I understand Kara’s point. But when I read the article something inside of me wasn’t sitting right – and I think it’s because the majority of us use social networks because of their ability to include as well as exclude (that’s why I haven’t replied to my mom’s ‘friend request’). If Facebook holds this stance of claiming ownership over all of our information I see two probable outcomes.
1. We all get over it (as Kara says)
2. We all bail out of the network for fear that we can’t be ourselves
I’m not sure about other people, but I don’t feel comfortable with a company owning and using my information/content. People who are worried about their online reputation and thought they were safe in a social network (i.e. content only viewable by friends) now have something to fear. I ramped my Facebook privacy settings to protect my privacy and online reputation. Now, online, I won’t be myself, even in the perceived sanctity of a social network, because somewhere Big Brother is watching – and gathering.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to delete my Facebook account.
Posted by Rodger Banister at February 17th, 2009 at 1:01 pmA:
I had to address your comment, as it was about as bullying as you claim Facebook to be. I was obviously kidding about haircut, although I really should have figured some people have exactly zero sense of humor.
Dangerous stuff I do not understand? Thanks, Dad!
Please. I live in the world of copyright and I get it.
Facebook has no intention of using your material or selling it or asserting ownership rights and you know it. If Time Warner uploads a movie someday, do you actually think Facebook is going to claim ownership?
That’s a lovely lawsuit waiting to happen, no matter what is in that Terms of Service.
You’re just making a lot of noise over what will be a straw man issue. That is very irresponsible of you, but makes for some very flame-throwing assertions!
Obviously, my point was about the lack of true control over your material once you click publish all over the Web.
I did not say it was okay, I said that when you post things on a someone’s Wall or share photos and such, you must be aware that your control over such material is diminished.
Posted by Kara Swisher at February 17th, 2009 at 3:43 pmFunny thing about privacy, we all want it, but if we could be on a reality show for a chance to make a fool of ourselves (and win $$) wouldn’t we all do it? Well, not all of us, but still.
I’ve never understood the whole debate about online privacy unless everyone has a lot to hide. Obviously I don’t want my passwords or usernames given out, but just by posting here, aren’t I exposing myself, a blog, my thoughts on this subject? Which are then, in turn free for use by AllThingsD? Can’t they use comments to learn about readers?
They do it with your IP address (by tracking what brought you to the site, how you navigated through it, where you went after), or at least they could. Is that wrong.
Funny, cause before coming to this post (thanks for the Tweet about it), I actually had a different opinion on Facebook’s recently-reversed claims about privacy. Now though, I have to agree with Kara.
I’m fine with sites using my info for marketing purposes–mostly cause I work in marketing communications. The risk is what’s to stop them from looking at truly private items? The true “big brother” way of looking into our lives? I guess though that the same argument that applies to bad TV shows applies to online privacy. If you don’t like it, turn the channel or shut it off.
Posted by Jon Bacon at February 18th, 2009 at 12:14 am“Facebook has no intention of using your material or selling it or asserting ownership rights and you know it.”
Kara, I hope you have a lawyer look over your contracts before you sign them.
“You’re just making a lot of noise over what will be a straw man issue. That is very irresponsible of you, but makes for some very flame-throwing assertions!”
Irresponsible!!! YOU POSTED 4 blog posts on this!!!! Why did Zuckerburg change the terms back then? There must of been a reason that you were not concerned about.
And now you know Im upset about your blog- because you dont have command of the subject, but you insist that you do.
Posted by andrew baron at February 18th, 2009 at 5:17 amA:
I don’t agree with you and your only argument is that I am some stupid girl who does not know squat, except to say snarky things.
Now, I see the genesis of Rocketboom, that bastion of high quality journalism!
I have written about Facebook almost since its existence, have spent a ton of time reporting on the company and, unlike you, actually breaking news stories on its efforts. How much reporting do you do? None, I would bet.
Before that I covered digital issues for the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal and wrote two books on the topic.
Frankly, I’d go with me over your rants any day, but I am biased.
But, of course, I am some dumb lady who needs you to explain it all for me!
My point about the copyright is that Facebook was never going to take people’s content and they never would have. They made a dumb error in changing the TOS and changed it back. It was not some plot to get the stellar video vault of Rocketboom.
The post above was primarily about privacy or lack thereof in the social networking space and you can twist it all you like to suit your needs, but please try to be accurate.
I never said whether FB should or should not backtrack. I was making a point, with some jokes that you clearly don’t like, about privacy.
As to the four posts: It is really none of your business what I choose to post on. But please, I beg you, don’t read anymore, as it is clearly causing you pain.
Posted by Kara Swisher at February 18th, 2009 at 6:10 pmHi Kara,
“Facebook has no intention of using your material or selling it or asserting ownership rights and you know it. If Time Warner uploads a movie someday, do you actually think Facebook is going to claim ownership?”
What makes you so sure about it? What if its not a company like Time Warner but some other small company which is not at eye level with Facebook?
To me Facebook is a platform and they have to find other ways to gain revenues. Obiously, it’s not advertising but it shouldn`t be mash ups out of my stuff either.
Posted by Steffen Seitz at February 20th, 2009 at 12:35 am