Canadian Group Says People Are Too Stupid To Use Facebook... And It's Facebook's Fault
from the more-trouble-for-Facebook dept
Facebook seems to be getting attacked from all sides these days. The latest is a Canadian group alleging that Facebook violates all sorts of privacy laws in Canada. The basic complaint seems to be that the site collects info on its users and shares them with others without the users' permission. However, if you look through the details, what the group really seems to be saying is that people are simply too stupid to understand what they're revealing to Facebook -- and therefore Facebook needs to be punished until it better educates people. There's a fine line between consumer protection and simply blaming companies for users not understanding what they're doing. And, in fact, even then it seems to be quite a stretch to suggest that most users don't understand what kind of information they're giving Facebook or what's being done with it. This seems like yet another attempt to just blame Facebook for absolutely nothing.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: canada, privacy, social networks
Companies: facebook
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
PIPEDA
- the information cannot be stored "indefinitely" (not sure that applies here)
- it must be made clear at the time of collection what the information is to be used for
- if the uses of that information are to change, the user must be made aware and grant addition consent
I'm not a Facebook user, but it seems to me that laws like the above would be useful in preventing a company from selling your information to advertisers without your consent, logging and selling your click-through information, etc.
This is not "blaming Facebook" for anything - it is asking them to be compliant with the law in a country where they do business. If they are not making their intentions for the use of personal info clear at the time that is it collected, or using a "the terms of this agreement are subject to change" cop out, then they are violating PIPEDA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: PIPEDA
This definitely complies with the second 2 points you listed.
However, the gist of the article is really this quote:
"Some 14-year-old kid might not know that privacy settings exist or how to take advantage of them or appreciate the ramifications of having their private information disclosed to third parties."
In other words, some kids are not reading the options on the screen properly and therefore Facebook might not be honouring their wishes. I fail to see how this is Facebook's fault - again, I don't see how you could "not know the privacy settings exist" since they're presented to you on a separate screen every time you add a profile or certain additional content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: PIPEDA
When you join a network you are not directed to the privacy settings screen to change back all the settings that were just changed to "share" automatically upon joining.
You are not explicitly told your personal information is going to be used for targeted advertising.
You have no choice but to consent to sharing ALL your personal information when you add an application. Try telling a kid that wants to play tetris that he shouldnt consent to giving all his personal information to some stranger.
Even if you dont install an application, if a friend installed an application, that application can also access YOUR information. If you want to change this you have to go to advanced options which are not obvious.
Even after you close your account, facebook still retains your information for an indefinite amount of time.
You may think that your profile is completely secure because you have set your profile settings to only be shared with friends; yet, if someone else links to your photo with a tag or post, all their friends will be able to see your photo... unless you further change photo sharing privileges.
If you have ever logged onto facebook mobile on someone else's phone and didnt log out, then they can still be accessing your account. EVEN IF you change your password or deactivate your account and reactivate it. There is nothing you can do! The cookie is indefinite.
The complaint is not saying that facebook is bad or that it should not be used. It is simnply saying that they should make some adjustments to ensure that EVERYONE's personal information is being protect.
Is that alright with you? Bravo to you for understanding facbook, but some people overlook certain privacy settings and think that the default settings should be for sharing with only FRIENDS, not all 400,000 people in your city network. Is that cool with you guys? Some people want to share photos with friends, not have ads targeted at them because they are 14 and have a certain sexual preference. Some people want to read the horoscope without providing all of their personal information to some complete stranger with no restrictions on how they can use it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: PIPEDA:Back to being stupid are we?
Fine.
But let's get back to the point here. What they are implying is that Facebook users are too many bricks short of a load to understand that Facebook is all about sharing information and that you better well be sure that anything you put up there is something you want your grandmother to know about.
There are legitimate concerns here under the letter of the law or, perhaps, even the intent of the law but still, it amounts to saying that we're all too dense to figure it out for ourselves using the mythical 14 year old as the example.
What bothers me about do gooders is this assumption that I must have an IQ in single digits while they are all so much brighter and they feel, in some kind of misguided nobless obilgue to defend me from myself.
Please go find yourself another Canuck to defend, will you?
Between people like you and the NDP I've had about all I can take of the smothering nanny state you want to create.
ttfn
John (pissed off)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: PIPEDA
Most likely FB is violating PIPEDA. FB is not alone in this - the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) has noted that most social networking sites face similar issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Most regular folks don't seem to understand that any information they post on the web can be spread, backed-up and otherwise duplicated infinitely, no matter what their expectations of privacy are.
Once information is on the internet, nobody owns it anymore - it is by nature impossible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Typically Canadian
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Typically Canadian
Well, I'm Canadian too, and I read about this "protect the children" attitude a lot more coming from american media, especially the conservative types...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Typically Canadian
Can I count on you to help craft legislation to protect us from bored university law students? :-)
nanny state mode OFF
PS: I don't need to be protected from myself but I do need protection from this kind of lunacy.
ttfn
John
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I dont understand
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmmm....
I believe that you are missing the point of the complaint. Although Facebook privacy measures may be sufficient to some, they do not ensure to protect to lowest common denominator.
I am not sure if you are a facebook user, but the current privacy settings are confusing. And there are aspects that are not properly revealed to the user. For example, you can not opt out of targeted advertising. Explain this notion to a 14 year old boy or girl.
I find it hard to give this article any credit when it doesn't see any sort of argument whatsoever. Maybe you think it is weak, but when you say "This seems like yet another attempt to just blame Facebook for absolutely nothing," you simply demonstrate that you are oblivious.
Read the comments on this site and other sites. If even 10% agree with the complaint, isn't that a reason to care?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmmm....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hmmm....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perhaps more valid use of “stupid” would be to assign it to someone who expects teenagers to read / care about the terms and conditions of data usage and access on websites they may wish to use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmmm....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hmmm....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmmm....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tell the World Your Life ...
Also, to #3 "In other words, some kids are not reading the options on the screen properly" ... it must be CLEARLY STATED, not hidden behind a lot of legal detail or confusing screens as to what can be done with the data, else it does make it Facebook's fault.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Problem with laws, from another country, that you dont understand.
Currently this is the same law that allows another group of citizens to sue Bell, for the same reason. When they use the DPI tech without consent, there is a big issue there.
It means that you can tell if a Medical/support site that you visit, simply tracks you and then does Google like advertising, or it's a full-on sellout of your history.
I also think there will be more lawsuits with the same idea that when someone steals the laptop with my info in it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Agreed
JJ
http://www.Ultimate-Anonymity.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bigger picture
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bigger picture:Wrong, Wrong and Wrong
Oh, you must be defining the bureaucrats who crafted this for Chretien's last government.
Hate to tell you but you don't get much deeper in government than the bureaucrats of the Ministry of Justice.
Also there is varying privacy legislation in each of the 10 provinces and three territories. Maybe not "all sorts of privacy laws" but certainly enough.
"CIPPIC (.ca) isn't some loose cannon, but a university-based law clinic that does outstanding work and is sadly one of the very few groups in Canada devoted to public interest advocacy."
Oh you mean other than other do-gooders that Canada grows like weeds?
And while you're at it debase other such groups at other major and minor universities around Canada, why don't you?
They may not be a loose cannon but in this case they seriously need to check their load because they've misfired by a considerable amount. (Said as a former artilleryman in the RCHA, btw)
"Over this past year we've had many critical discussions about FB in my 4th-yr seminar - among 20-something students who are not exactly stupid and yet feel FB is not worthy of their trust. So what should they do?"
Stay away from it, just like you suggested.
After all, I can't think of a better way of letting them know you're unhappy.
And I do remember myself as a 20 something and stupid is mostly what I remember even as I sat in University quite certain that I knew it all.
One of the advantages to making it into my mid 50s and finding that I never did know it all and I'm not likely to either.
Makes for a happier life, it does.
"Privacy may be a debased currency on the Net, but that's no reason to let MZ play fast and loose with the FB membership and their personal data."
But is there such a thing as realizing that social nets aren't about privacy in the ways that the Act, that was passed into law before the phrase even existed, didn't forsee?
Is there such a thing in your students minds, and in yours, about learning to take responsibility for one self and ones own need to protect one's own privacy while FB plays fast and loose with it?
I guess not.
Another job for Super Nanny State!
Jack Layton must be so proud.
ttfn
John
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
real issue
If parents would take 5 min out of their lives and be interested in their children and what they are doing then there is no need to play the protection laws for illigitimate reasons.
Solved the problem, don't just look for 1 of 100 different possibilities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: real issue
when people get in trouble online they just blame their computers or the internet itself rather than own up to doing something without understanding the consequences.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The basis for PIPEDA
Ten interrelated principles form the basis of the CSA Model Code for the Protection of Personal Information. Each principle must be read in conjunction with the accompanying commentary.
1. Accountability
An organization is responsible for personal information under its control and shall designate an individual or individuals who are accountable for the organization's compliance with the following principles.
2. Identifying Purposes
The purposes for which personal information is collected shall be identified by the organization at or before the time the information is collected.
3. Consent
The knowledge and consent of the individual are required for the collection, use, or disclosure of personal information, except where inappropriate.
4. Limiting Collection
The collection of personal information shall be limited to that which is necessary for the purposes identified by the organization. Information shall be collected by fair and lawful means.
5. Limiting Use, Disclosure, and Retention
Personal information shall not be used or disclosed for purposes other than those for which it was collected, except with the consent of the individual or as required by law. Personal information shall be retained only as long as necessary for the fulfilment of those purposes.
6. Accuracy
Personal information shall be as accurate, complete, and up-to-date as is necessary for the purposes for which it is to be used.
7. Safeguards
Personal information shall be protected by security safeguards appropriate to the sensitivity of the information.
8. Openness
An organization shall make readily available to individuals specific information about its policies and practices relating to the management of personal information.
9. Individual Access
Upon request, an individual shall be informed of the existence, use, and disclosure of his or her personal information and shall be given access to that information. An individual shall be able to challenge the accuracy and completeness of the information and have it amended as appropriate.
10. Challenging
Compliance An individual shall be able to address a challenge concerning compliance with the above principles to the designated individual or individuals accountable for the organization's compliance.
Yes, if you dig through Facebook at least once a week as they change how they collect info and what they do with it, you might have a chance but as they already say they collect your info even if you aren't a member, I fail to see how it's "stupid" people that are the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The basis for PIPEDA
But then it's wayyyyyy too easy to go to the federal privacy czar to get a ruling that will apply extra-territorially to Facebook which isn't, after all, a Canadian company.
Put the shoe on the other foot and imagine, say the United States, trying the same thing with a company based in Canada. The howls of outrage from the same 20 something students who aren't. allegedly, loose cannons (even if they need to be relashed into place) if that happened.
Editorial field days galore, speechifying in the Commons, endless "angry" barbs in Question Period and on and on and on.
Fact is that it isn't stupid people nor is it stupid laws.
It is the knee jerk response of this group to appeal to Nanny State to correct it when Nanny State needs to step back.
Oh, and the guidelines are so open ended as to make them kind of useless in this discussion.
Just who decides what is the "sensitivity of the information" freely shared on a social net site?
And does not even joining Facebook imply informed consent when by doing so you know (or ought to know) that you're consenting to a lower level of privacy that you'd find acceptable elsewhere or in a commerical transaction?
I could go on but I'm getting tired and the cats litter box needs changing.
At least that is productive and solves a real problem.
ttfn
John
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Human Nature?
1. All humans are egocentric: "The world revolves around me." Sure, some people appear to do altruistic things but that's to make them look good!
2. If something goes wrong, it is someone else's fault. "Hey, FaceBook should have done X!" In the psychological literature, you'll find something called "Attribution Theory" that includes looking at how people ascribe causes. People make "external attributions" about bad things that happen to themselves ("I tripped up BECAUSE there was a high curb") but make "internal attributions" about bad things that happen to others "He tripped up because he is an idiot."
3. People care less about other people who are (a) physically distant or (b) psychologically distant. Your brother dies, you are distraught for days: 50,000 strangers die in a tsunami half way across the world, you shake you head and forget quickly.
The Three-Point Psychology is admittedly simplistic, but if you want to work out why folks do as they do, just apply these rules and you'll be surprised how well they work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Human Nature?
I'd appreciate it if you didn't paint me with your brush of cynicism. Your problem is that you can only hear squeaky wheels, failing to recognize the silent majority; who from past experiences will tread cautiously when it comes to facebook (if they tread at all), and not charge in blindly and blame everyone else when something goes wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Human Nature?
The universe revolves around me... are you dizzy yet?
:-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Maybe facebook shouldn't attempt to bind a child to a contract consisting of mainly fine print....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: PIPEDA
I thought it was a newer law as it only took affect in the sector I work in on Jan 1, 2004. I'm surprised you don't hear more about companies violating PIPEDA in the "Web 2.0" world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Beware of Stuart if you are a kitten ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Parents should instruct their children...
As much as some like to think that laws protect anybody, I have news: Drugs are illegal. What high school kid can't get whatever drug they want?
Take the time to explain to your kids what these sites are all about -- why they exist and why they are valued in the billions of dollars. You may be surprised that even 9 and 10 year old kids will "get it".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Parents should instruct their children...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Greed vs Privacy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Greed vs Privacy
That predated the privacy laws federally and in whatever province you live in.
Of course, CanWest-Global, CTV and others are private and for profit when they use any of the above to report the news. So are newsapapers and so is what's left of MacLeans.
And the privacy laws don't prevent how private companies make profit from the information they have on you, simply that there are rules in place which govern what they can do with it and that you have a chance to correct it.
Say the private companies that do credit checks.
ttfn
John
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Canadians are so fricking stupid they need help
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Facebook makes young teens vulnerable to real-life predators
I would like to re-iterate that certain Facebook applications make teens vulnerable to real world, in person attack more than any other social networks because they display your school under your name and give a potential attacker access to the names of all you friends.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Facebook makes young teens vulnerable to real-life predators
truth be told, 85% of the people who use the internet are too stupid to be there in the first place, and the internet would be a better place without them, but for some reason that's considered elitist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Facebook makes young teens vulnerable to real-life predators
How are they "more vulnerable in the real world" because of Facebook than, say, riding a bus or going to the mall?
What precisely are the "more vulnerable" to?
I see a lot of Lou Dobbs-ing in your post: that is to say lots of scary wording with nothing of substance to back it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Facebook makes young teens vulnerable to real-life predators
With almost 700,000 13 and 14 year olds in Canada and the United States alone... it might just be a matter of statistics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Facebook makes young teens vulnerable to real-life predators
How many abductions or molestations occur because of contact via the Internet?
Again, quoting scary numbers and broad, unsubstantiated sentences like "it might just be a matter of ..." is nothing but irrational sensationalism.
Lou-Dobbsianism at its best.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stupid people...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Parents should instruct their children...
Surely one of the basics of getting along in the world is understanding that "if you use a good or service, it's going to cost you something, somewhere". If people understood that, maybe they wouldn't be sucked in to the illusion of things like, say, "free" websites or "free" healthcare.
And if the parents can't understand the danger, how are they to understand the laws that are supposedly protecting them from the danger?
No, wait, I know, the government will protect them, and will make sure that nobody can use a service that allows even the slighest chance of such a horrible thing as seeing a directed advertisement, even for those who understand and accept that's what they're signing up for when they use the site.
But to make really sure that nobody blunders into one of those terrible websites, they'll monitor all network traffic, and block any sites that have unacceptable terms of service.
And when that proves impractical, well, the government will set up and force its citizens to use a walled garden, where you can only get to government-approved websites. Yep, that'll keep people safe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you weren't selfish, you wouldn't have felt violated. The human race, myself included, are all selfish being and as he stated only do other to make THEM feel better about it. Get a life
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do not use social sites!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]