Between the Lines

Larry Dignan, Andrew Nusca and Rachel King

Senators call for changes to Facebook's privacy settings

By | April 27, 2010, 3:22pm PDT

Summary: Four U.S. senators are calling for Facebook to adjust some of the new privacy settings so users can have more control over the personal information that’s made public.

The executives at Facebook should be used to this by now - cries of privacy violations stemming from some sort of change to the popular social networking site.

Funny thing, though. I’m not hearing a lot of whining about Facebook’s changes from the people on my friend list. Instead, many of them are rallying around a group called “No, I will not pay $3.98 a month to use Facebook as of July 10, 2010″ - even though I can’t recall ever hearing Facebook talk about such a fee.

No, this time, the group up in arms on behalf of Facebook users who don’t know any better is a team of four U.S. Senators who have sent a formal notice of concern to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg over recent changes to the site’s privacy policy.

Specifically, there are three main concerns addressed in the letter from Senators Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), Michael Bennet (D-Col.), Mark Begich (Alaska) and Al Franken (D-Minn.)

  • The opt-out - instead of opt-in - over the expansion of publicly available data to include current city, hometown, education, work, likes, interests and friends. For those who choose to opt-out, the information is deleted from profiles. The senators say the users “should have more control over these very personal and very common data points.
  • The storage of profile data by third-party advertisers used to be limited to 24 hours but that was recently lifted by Facebook. At the f8 conference last week, the executives said this was more of a technicality and suggested that it wasn’t as big of a deal as it might sound. Clearly, Facebook needs to do a better job explaining what this is all about.
  • Instant personalization is nice but the senators are concerned that the feature will allow third-party partners to have access to both a user’s publicly available information but also to the user’s friend list and information about those people. Again, an opt-in instead of an opt-out - in an easy-to-understand way - may be all it takes to satisfy the concerns.

In their letter to Zuckerberg, the senators suggested that, aside from an examination of the issue by the FTC, they believe “Facebook can take swift and productive steps to alleviate the concerns of its users.”

It sounds to me that Facebook may need a better way to reach out to its users on what these changes means and how it affects them. After all, Facebook has direct access to our Facebook inboxes, our Facebook walls and our Facebook News Feeds. If Facebook wanted to convey an easy-to-understand message to its users - emphasis on “easy-to-understand” - it certainly has the tools at its fingertips.

If it did a better job of that, maybe it could finally launch a product or partnership or redesign without getting backlash from users or formal letters from U.S. senators

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Sam has been a technology and business blogger for more than 18 years.

Disclosure

Sam Diaz

Sam Diaz has nothing to disclose.

Biography

Sam Diaz

Sam has been a technology and business blogger, reporter and editor at ZDNet, the Washington Post, San Jose Mercury News and Fresno Bee for more than 18 years. He's a member of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists and a graduate of California State University, Fresno.

Talkback Most Recent of 64 Talkback(s)

  • SHAME!
    Sickening...
    In this new world of the internet people don't seem to realize the full extent of lack of privacy. Some mark it up as a, "oh that's okay... it works for me!" "it's free!" "I want more advertisers understanding my personal tendencies!" "It's okay for companies to gather my information - I just don't want the government!" "Boy this is free and it's going to help me."

    When will people realize that nothing is "free." Nothing in life free - there are consequences for every step you make - every move you make.

    Some seem to get that more of their information will be sold to the highest bidder only to have them catagorized and profiled.

    Historically the US government's willingness to go against business even if it puts the American people in danger is noteworthy. Need examples? Try the hijacking / terrorism used for the massive bailout.

    Glad that someone has the balls to step up. We'll see just how important the US government believes privacy and autonomy is to the American people. I will guess that with the amount of money many of the big businesses are throwing on the table no one will step up to, "cut their precious revenue streams and opportunities to build new and exciting revenue potential."

    SHAME!
    ZDNet Gravatar
    jessiethe3rd
    27th Apr 2010
  • So To Protect Us
    From a private company, subject to market forces, a VOLUNTARY service to which we are not required to belong...

    We should surrender essential liberties and above all, responsibility for our lives to the federal government?

    Meanwhile, a NY lawmaker wishes to reverse the organ donor process to "presumed consent"... they get to harvest your organs unless you specifically in advance say "no".

    But that's your beloved, precious (socialist) government wanting to do the exact same thing with your body parts that Facebook wants to do with personal information (information they cannot get without your consent.)

    Sorry, "social networking" site Facebook is no threat to my security or safety. The socialist federal government is.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    hiraghm@...
    28th Apr 2010
  • You're an idiot
    What do you plan on doing with those organs after you die? Gonna keep em' and use them to barter your way outta hell?

    People like you are just sad.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    blueskip
    28th Apr 2010
  • You're an Idiot
    Interesting, i suppose that it would be OK for
    the government to take all of your money when
    you die, you don't need it anymore and those
    poor unfortunate slobs that you left behind
    really don't care what happens with it either.
    Let me decide what I want to do with my body
    parts, my money and oh, my personal
    information. If I am to stupid to protect
    information that I feel is sensitive that is my
    fault, if I want my organs to remain in my
    body, that is my choice, if I want to give my
    money to my family or someone else when I die,
    that is my choice. Why should I let the
    government make those decisions for me.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    jsweet@...
    28th Apr 2010
  • PERFECTLY SAID
    Could not have said that better myself!

    Unfortunately over the past 9 years we have lost many of our freedoms.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    jasonemmg
    28th Apr 2010
  • Did I mention money?
    Yep, you have just PROVEN you're an idiot.

    As far as money yeah you're on target. But then even an idiot gets SOMETHING right every once in a while.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    blueskip
    28th Apr 2010
  • Worms need to eat too
    You're an idiot. You want a doctor to decide that your life isn't as important as someone else's, just so he can harvest your organs?

    Maybe I'm squeamish and don't like the idea of parts of my body being used by someone else once I'm gone?

    Maybe I'm afraid they'll be used to keep some liberal alive who will work to further this nonsensical rush to socialism we're hell-bent on?

    Maybe I have religious convictions which oppose the harvesting of organs upon death? That first amendment is such an inconvenient *****, isn't it?

    Maybe it's that they're MY organs, and ultimately *I* should have the last word on what is done with my body when I'm gone?

    Maybe I want to leave the option to my children to sell my organs to pay for the cost of burying me?

    It doesn't matter. NOBODY has a right to my body, even after I'm done using it.

    How about, after you die, I "presume" that you want to donate your car to... me? Or your house to the KKK? Or your clothes to Goodwill?
    Taking my garbage can to the street implies that I consent to have it hauled off. This doesn't mean that the garbageman can come walking into my house and grab my wastebaskets.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    hiraghm@...
    28th Apr 2010
  • If I'm DEAD...I repeat DEAD...
    I don't think I really give a squat what you do with them. And NO, I nor anyone else, will ever want another idiot deciding whether I should give up my organs early just so someone else can enjoy a BETTER quality of life than mine.

    Are you people nine years old???
    ZDNet Gravatar
    blueskip
    28th Apr 2010
  • re:
    Nope...You're the idiot..

    What OWNERSHIP OR RIGHT does ANY GOV'T HAVE to MY ORGANS????????

    IT IS MY BODY...I WILL EAT AND DRINK WHATEVER FOODS AND LIQUIDS I DECIDE NOT SOME RICH MAYOR BLOOMBERG OR OTHER GOV'T PERSON(S) !!!!!!!
    WHAT ABOUT MY RELIGIOUS LAWS??


    YOU must be a BUSH SUPPORTER!!!
    ZDNet Gravatar
    jasonemmg
    28th Apr 2010
  • OMG...Where have I gone wrong?
    To deserve being called a supporter of fascist regime leader?

    I don't think so...
    ZDNet Gravatar
    blueskip
    28th Apr 2010
  • I think you missed the point.
    The point is that you do have a right to eat all those things you want.

    However, you do not have a right to misdirect and misguide me into eating those same things.

    This is what smoking bans are about. You do have a right to smoke, but you do not have a right to force me to inhale your smoke. Fact is, my right to smoke free air is trumps your right to smoke. Because you cannot be harmed by breathing smoke free air. I on the other hand, can be harmed by your cigarette smoke. Your cigarette smoke can cause me to stop breathing. A situation that I have experienced in the past.

    As far as food is concerned, you can always add salt, fat or whatever you want to your food to your liking. To remove that stuff after the fact is, well, near impossible.

    (Added)
    I'm still getting use to asking for fries with no salt at McDonalds. I started that a month ago when I put a fry in my mouth and nearly barfed. It had so much salt on it that it reminded me of eating rock salt when I was a kid.

    Eating that much salt back then was just being a stupid kid, but to do it now, especially after having heart surgery back in 07, that would constitute insanity.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    satovey@...
    30th Apr 2010
  • Par for the course
    Terrific. Somebody posts something with some actual intelligent content (in this case, hiraghm@...'s "So To Protect Us" post), and here comes a brilliantly incisive and well-reasoned response like "You're an idiot." How imaginative.

    FWIW, hiraghm@...'s post nails the most fundamental issue here. The lack of respect for property and the individual's moral right to control his own property starts with the fraud we incorrectly call "government". The state does not provide government; the state only interferes with property. That sets the tone for the rest of society.

    Sure, Facebook's policies suck. They're just emulating the example set by the state. The difference is that, with political coercion, you don't have a choice. You obey, or you lose. With Facebook, if you don't like it, you don't have to participate. No one's holding a gun to your head. You can't do that with the state.

    You don't have any "right" to free social networking. You don't need a Facebook account to survive. But no...that's not good enough. "I want my Facebook, and I want it the way I want it....waaaahhh. There oughta be a law...!" ...and the political thugs are only too happy to accommodate that demand for ever more thuggery.

    And people wonder how we got into this friggin' mess. I'll tell you how: We're applying more of the problem while deluding ourselves into believing that it's the solution. The more laws they pass, the less freedom we have. It can't possibly work.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    slingzenarrowzuvowtrayjissforchin
    28th Apr 2010
  • Another idiot...
    Can you people even read???? WHERE did I mention MONEY???!!! Or for that matter Facebook??
    ZDNet Gravatar
    blueskip
    28th Apr 2010
  • the state only interferes with property
    and if it didn't, the Great lakes would be polluted to the point of not being able to support fish. That is the way it was prior to environmental laws regulating business pollution.

    Yes, we do have idiots in office that want to control every little bitty detail of our lives, but lets not make the mistake of throwing off all laws and ending up in a land that is so polluted it cannot support life.

    That's what we would end up with if we had no government or a government that is as limited as libertarians want it to be.

    History has already proven this.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    satovey@...
    30th Apr 2010
  • You call that "courage"?
    jessiethe3rd: You wrote, "Glad that someone has the balls to step up."

    You can't be serious. You think these political goons have COURAGE? They have a gun, for crying out loud. They can force people to do what they say. You call that courage?

    I call it bullying. It's arrogant, sanctimonious, holier-than-thou self-prepossession that presumes I don't have enough wisdom to make my own choices, but they have enough wisdom to make them for me.

    Yeah, right...if that's true, then why do they need to back it up with coercion? They're so sure of themselves that they need a gun to force their opinions down my throat. In other words, the real basis of their authority has nothing to do with moral or rational principle. Strip away all the authoritarian pretense and it boils down to "might makes right".

    Why on Earth do we need such thugs telling us what to do? If I'm not free to make my own mistakes, then I'm not free at all. These bozos want to protect me from LEARNING. No wonder we're becoming a nation of sheep.

    You see, the whole thing is a bust. They know good and well that no one is going to willingly surrender control of his freedom of choice as to what he does with his own life and property, so they threaten you with loss of a greater amount to con you into forking over a lesser amount.

    It's a complete fraud. When illegal organized crime does it, it's called racketeering. But when the state legitimizes it by passing arbitrary laws, it's called "government". The only difference is the legality, and the fact that they get what they want through fraud rather than naked force. But it's still organized crime.

    And it certainly isn't courage.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    slingzenarrowzuvowtrayjissforchin
    28th Apr 2010

Talkback - Tell Us What You Think

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources