×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Facebook Violates Canadian Privacy Law

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the over-sharing dept.

Privacy 179

Myriad and a number of other readers passed along the news that the Canadian Privacy Commissioner has made a determination that Facebook violates Canadian privacy law in four different respects. Canada has the highest per-capita facebook participation in the world — about a third of the population — according to coverage in The Star. The EU is also expressing similar privacy concerns, though Canada's action "represents the most exhaustive official investigation of Facebook privacy practices anywhere in the world," says Michael Geist. The CBC's coverage spells out the areas of privacy concern, in particular that nearly a million developers of Facebook apps in 180 countries have full access to the entirety of users' private data. Also of concern: Facebook holds on to your data indefinitely after you quit the site. The BBC notes that Facebook is working with the privacy commission to resolve the issues, and quotes a Facebook spokesman thus: "Overall, we are looking for practical solutions that operate at scale and respect the fact that people come to share and not to hide." (Schneier recently blogged about research on "privacy salience," and cited Facebook's practices among others' as practical examples of how social networking sites have learned not to push the privacy issue in users' faces.)

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

179 comments

First Poke (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28730891)

frosty pist

Rob Malda is no longer an anal virgin (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28731011)

Last night I took Rob Malda's anal virginity. It was amusing listening to him squeal like a pig as my throbbing member eviscerated his asshole. It bled a little bit after we were finished but he said he had never cum so hard as he did that time. If any other Slashdot anal virgins want their anal virginity taken away in the most pleasurable way possible, please respond to this post.

Draconian Laws (4, Insightful)

A. B3ttik (1344591) | more than 4 years ago | (#28730901)

Does anyone actually expect privacy from these networking sites anymore?

Besides, who puts something on Facebook that they _want_ to keep _private_?

Re:Draconian Laws (4, Insightful)

schon (31600) | more than 4 years ago | (#28730951)

who puts something on Facebook that they _want_ to keep _private_?

People who don't know any better, who are (incidentally) the same people the privacy laws were written to protect.

Re:Draconian Laws (2, Interesting)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 3 years ago | (#28731391)

Why as a society do we continue to protect the stupid. Can't we just let them fail and go away. If we continue to prop them up there will be no breeding disadvantage to them and we will all become fucking idiots. Please for the love of the deity of your choice. Let the stupid kill themselves off!

Re:Draconian Laws (1)

goofyspouse (817551) | more than 3 years ago | (#28731687)

While I feel you pain here, I must point out a flaw in this particular line of reasoning. Namely, the stupid always seem just smart enough to find an underemployed attorney willing fight on their behalf no matter how weak their "case" may be. This often makes them rich and imparts a breeding advantage.

Re:Draconian Laws (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#28732203)

If you think that there is no field in which you would be considered "stupid" then you're quite an arrogant little sod.

Re:Draconian Laws (2, Insightful)

Ephemeriis (315124) | more than 3 years ago | (#28731707)

who puts something on Facebook that they _want_ to keep _private_?

People who don't know any better, who are (incidentally) the same people the privacy laws were written to protect.

People who don't know any better?

I put a gigantic billboard in my front yard - 20' tall. Plaster all kinds of personal information on it. Maybe some racy photos. And then, when everyone in the world knows the intimate details of my life I can cry foul because some privacy law was supposed to protect me, because I didn't know any better?

What ever happened to common sense?

I'm not talking about understanding the intricacies of HTTP or how various web apps share information... I'm talking about basic, common sense.

Why would you put private information on a social networking site? The whole point in a social networking site is to share information.

Re:Draconian Laws (2, Insightful)

ToadProphet (1148333) | more than 3 years ago | (#28731893)

You're right, but I don't think Joe Sixpack necessarily understands the concepts of data mining, profiling, etc and how they might relate to social networking sites. Nor do I think he, or the average teenager, understands the permanence of data or the associated implications. And frankly, what may make sense to post on a gigantic billboard in your front yard may not make sense, or even be legal, tomorrow. Times change. Governments change. Social mores change. I think expecting your average internet user to consider these things is asking a little much.

Re:Draconian Laws (3, Insightful)

Ephemeriis (315124) | more than 3 years ago | (#28732323)

You're right, but I don't think Joe Sixpack necessarily understands the concepts of data mining, profiling, etc and how they might relate to social networking sites. Nor do I think he, or the average teenager, understands the permanence of data or the associated implications.

And frankly, what may make sense to post on a gigantic billboard in your front yard may not make sense, or even be legal, tomorrow. Times change. Governments change. Social mores change. I think expecting your average internet user to consider these things is asking a little much.

No it isn't.

People have been making decisions (sometimes stupid ones) and living with the consequences for centuries. Ok, maybe it's easier to squash a verbally-distributed nasty rumor than a digitally-distributed incriminating photo, but that doesn't mean that common sense no longer applies.

Look back at some printed statements over the years... Things that were appropriate at the time and showed up very proudly in newspapers all over the united states, and now look very embarrassing.

Political careers have been ended because of a youthful indiscretion or an incriminating photograph.

Tons of people have tattoos that they wish they hadn't gotten.

Plenty of people have taken pictures they shouldn't have, and had it used against them.

Ever hear of Nixon? Recorded some tapes he probably wished he hadn't.

How about Sotomayor? Bet she wishes she hadn't said some things right about now.

This isn't about understanding data mining or profiling, this is about simple common sense - which is apparently in short supply these days. If I proudly proclaim that I like big butts on FaceBook you don't need to mine any data - you know that I like big butts. You don't have to profile anything, I've stated it in plain text. Oh, now my mother read it and I'm embarrassed? I guess I shouldn't have written it where she could see it, now should I?

Twitter, FaceBook, MySpace, blogs, text messaging, cell phones... They're all just ways of distributing a message. The problem isn't that distribution has become insanely quick, easy, and efficient. The problem is that nobody is thinking about the message anymore.

Folks will call up a friend and have a running conversation about the random people walking by them and what they're wearing - why? Just because you can tell your friend that somebody wearing a Penny Arcade t-shirt doesn't mean you have to.

People actually report on their bowel movements! Why?!

Re:Draconian Laws (1)

French Mailman (773320) | more than 3 years ago | (#28732167)

One thing to keep in mind is that once people are on FB, private information about them can be posted by other people and linked to them via tagging and linking. Because of most default settings in FB, people can't easily control who sees what their friends and families post about them.

Also, the recent article on privacy salience on Bruce Schneier's blog explains why some people put private information on such sites: FB and similar sites have an agressive marketing strategy that emphasizes the benefits of posting such information, while burying privacy concerns deep in hard-to-find pages.

Re:Draconian Laws (1)

Ephemeriis (315124) | more than 3 years ago | (#28732467)

One thing to keep in mind is that once people are on FB, private information about them can be posted by other people and linked to them via tagging and linking. Because of most default settings in FB, people can't easily control who sees what their friends and families post about them.

But you don't need to be on FaceBook for other people to post information about you. I can spread all sorts of nasty information about folks who don't have an on-line presence at all. I can upload photos, tag them with whatever I want to, and distribute them all over the place.

That's my point.

Whether or not FaceBook has a good privacy policy isn't going to protect anyone. If you do something stupid and/or incriminating, and there's evidence, you're just going to have to hope that nobody decides to share that information. And you sure as hell better not share it, regardless of the privacy policy of the site you put it on.

Also, the recent article on privacy salience on Bruce Schneier's blog explains why some people put private information on such sites: FB and similar sites have an agressive marketing strategy that emphasizes the benefits of posting such information, while burying privacy concerns deep in hard-to-find pages.

And we're back to common sense.

You shouldn't need to have privacy concerns pointed out to you.

If I post detailed information about every aspect of my life on a public website I'm sure I'll get all sorts of benefits... Marketers will be able to send me offers for jumbo-XL condoms and inflatable sheep and all sorts of other things that would interest me.

But that information is also available to my parents and employers and whoever else. So folks might use that information in deciding whether to hire me or not... Or whether they want to go out on a date with me... Or they could use it to take out a line of credit in my name...

This isn't some anonymous bathroom wall where you can safely scribble down something dirty and never have it traced back to you. This is a giant billboard that the whole world can see - complete with signature and personally-identifying information.

Re:Draconian Laws (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#28732449)

To most facebook users, when they send a private message to someone through the site, they assume it remains private. When they delete a message, they assume it is deleted.

Re:Draconian Laws (2, Interesting)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 3 years ago | (#28732135)

I'm not sure that privacy laws were written to protect the ignorant, so much as to protect the more savvy individual.

The guy who runs around bragging that he makes $200,000 a year deserves the parasites who hover around him. They KNOW he has money, because he told everyone. The guy who makes $80,000, and keeps it secret, can legitimately tell hopeful parasites to screw off, his money is none of their business.

Want to get more "personal"? The person who posts, "I'm a nubile teenage female, and I WANT TO GET LAID!" will have earned a lot of attention, and that is just what she will get. When she posts her real name, address, telephone number, etc - she can expect suitors, stalkers, worshipers - the entire range of people with varying responses to her announcement. Protect her? Why? She is getting what she wants.

Privacy laws are meant to protect those of us who wish to BE private, in my opinion.

Re:Draconian Laws (1)

kent_eh (543303) | more than 4 years ago | (#28730983)

Does anyone actually expect privacy from these networking sites anymore?

Most Facebook (or any other popular social networking site) don't know (or don't care) any better. Even if someone sat them down and explained it to them

They only start caring when they mature a bit.
By which time, it's way to late to do anything about the pictures of them doing naked bong hits.

Easy data mining for 3rd parties (5, Interesting)

Locklin (1074657) | more than 4 years ago | (#28730987)

Everybody seems to expect that Facebook has all this information, the issue is with applications/quizzes. By setting up some stupid quiz, you can collect contact and network data on everyone who fills it out. This could be used for everything from marketing research to "investigation" of various social/political groups.

Re:Easy data mining for 3rd parties (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#28731159)

It's the creepy "if you want to use this game/quiz/whatever you grant the app access to all your information" that caused me to quit it.

Re:Easy data mining for 3rd parties (1)

fprintf (82740) | more than 3 years ago | (#28731285)

I use the Greasemonkey script FB Purity and some other FB adblocker to keep the noise in Facebook down to a minimum. This way I don't see any of the quizzes people want me to take, and I do not get the potential embarrassment of those nasty pr0n/singles ads either. My friends sometimes make fun of me that I don't see what kind of Irish Drunk I am, or that I am most like a specific kind of insect, but I don't miss it.

I always feel guilty when clicking "yes" to the apps privacy notification, so I no longer do it. However I did click "yes" a few times and it has always made me wonder what info I had on FB at the time that is now being exploited. I have since cleaned up my profile, pictures, and even friends to be more inline with my typical stance on internet privacy. It may be too late, however.

Re:Easy data mining for 3rd parties (3, Interesting)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 3 years ago | (#28731601)

..to keep the noise in Facebook down to a minimum. This way I don't see any of the quizzes people want me to take..

little known facebook trick, is that if you hover over the notification, then click the x, you can select hide all from this application (also report as spam), a similar thing can be done when hiding friends who talk too much!

They prompt you (2, Insightful)

brunes69 (86786) | more than 3 years ago | (#28731241)

Any time you agree to take one of those quizes etc, Facebook pops up a GIANT box in your face basically saying that if you agree to take that quiz then you give all rights to your information and your first bord child to the developers of that application.

If the user is too stupid to read a giant disclaimer right in their face and decide it is not worth that risk to find out how much alike their taste in puppies is to Fergie, then I have no sympathy for them.

Re:They prompt you (4, Interesting)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 3 years ago | (#28731369)

I agree with that one, but what if you want to play chess with your friend? You should be able to do that without giving someone access to everything. Either the Facebook API doesn't support requesting limited rights, or a I have never seen an app that uses that capability.

Re:They prompt you (1)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 3 years ago | (#28731691)

It used to.

You used to have the ability to control what the developers had access to. Now the choices are "give them everything" or "do not use the application"

Re:Draconian Laws (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 4 years ago | (#28730997)

Unfortunately idiots out number intelligent people. How many cases have you heard of where a kid postssomething stupid they did oy tohave their parents find out about it.

I don't face a facebook account(I am not narsisstic enough) yet I hear about that crap 2-3times a month.

Re:Draconian Laws (1)

cil1mia (1165281) | more than 3 years ago | (#28732255)

Here! Here!

As the saying goes: Half of the population is stupid, and half of them are even stupider!

Re:Draconian Laws (5, Interesting)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 4 years ago | (#28731013)

Does anyone actually expect privacy from these networking sites anymore?

Yes many people do, not all countries believe so strongly in the market as the US and we often want restrictions put on businesses to keep our data the way we want it.

Besides, who puts something on Facebook that they _want_ to keep _private_?

People with friends, FB is not myspace (its not a site to go meet random people off the internet with) it's a site to allow friends (of varying levels of technical competency) to keep in touch and communicate. I put stuff i want my friends to see on my facebook profile that perhaps i don't want everybody in the world to know about! embarrassing pictures people take of me can be tagged on facebook, tbh i don't care if my mates see me passed out in a field but i sure as hell don't want everybody on the internet (including prospective employers) to see it. If i have a choice between
1)total privacy
2)a convenient way being able to organise events and nights out much easier at the expense of privacy.
I'm going to choose 2, however if that expense can be reduced then that is great.

Re:Draconian Laws (1)

Ephemeriis (315124) | more than 3 years ago | (#28731831)

So, let's say FaceBook has perfect privacy. You can share your information with whoever you want, and nobody else can get at that stuff. App authors can't get at it, FaceBook deletes it as soon as you quit. Perfect privacy.

You pass out in a field. Somebody takes a picture. You post that picture on FaceBook - only your friends can see it. Great!

Now one of your friends downloads it and emails it to his buddy, that you don't know, and that buddy re-uploads it to FaceBook.

Or maybe the guy who took the picture in the first place uploads it to Flickr.

The point I'm trying to make is that you don't share what you don't want to be out in the wild.

Used to be that you could do something stupid and maybe get away with it. If you passed out in some field maybe your friend would see it, but that would be it. Maybe a picture would be passed around. Worst-case scenario the whole school or maybe town would be talking about you.

These days it's insanely simple to share any random bit of information with anyone in the world. Not just easy for you to share information with your friend, but easy for them to share it with folks you'd rather they didn't. Instead of the worst-case scenario encompassing a town or school, it now encompasses the planet.

Re:Draconian Laws (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#28731927)

Now one of your friends downloads it and emails it to his buddy, that you don't know, and that buddy re-uploads it to FaceBook.

Did it ever occur to you that perhaps the person who took the picture of him passed out in a field already has a copy of the picture?

Re:Draconian Laws (4, Interesting)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 4 years ago | (#28731051)

Some people use Facebook to keep in touch with friends, not to post compromising pictures of themselves. Most Facebook profiles these days are only available to friends of the owner.

The apps thing has always bothered me about Facebook. The vast majority of apps are stupid and easy to ignore but there are a few interesting ones that I might use except that the only way to do so seems to be to give the free run of any and all personal information. Why did a game of Scrabble need to know anything more than my user number?

Re:Draconian Laws (3, Informative)

Roman Coder (413112) | more than 3 years ago | (#28732355)

Yesterday I saw an IQ Test" app and thought "Why not?", so I took the test (one could argue I failed it by just using Facebook to test my IQ, but I'll leave that for another discussion).

When I was done, the app wouldn't give me my results until I gave it my cell phone number, so it could send me the results of my test to my cell phone. Not like I could read it off of the web browser, right?

Pissed me off to no end that the app would so underhandedly try to farm my cell number this way, so I just backed out of the test and swore to never try another Facebook app after that.

So I agree, there's no reason why these apps needs ALL of my personal information to do their thing. Its just marketing companies running amok IMHO.

Re:Draconian Laws (4, Interesting)

sodul (833177) | more than 4 years ago | (#28731081)

There's one thing that disturbed me about Facebook: I wanted to apply for a position there, but you need a Facebook account in order to do so. So why not ? You have to provide some personal information especially your birth date, which is illegal for a prospect employer to ask.

I understand the recruiters might not look actively look for your birth date, yet now it's there for them to look at, forever in their database.

Re:Draconian Laws (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#28731201)

There's one thing that disturbed me about Facebook: I wanted to apply for a position there, but you need a Facebook account in order to do so. So why not ? You have to provide some personal information especially your birth date, which is illegal for a prospect employer to ask.

So, that's called an open & shut court case. Report them to the authorities, and sue.

Re:Draconian Laws (1)

Cedric Tsui (890887) | more than 3 years ago | (#28731435)

How does that work?

The only thing he/she has lost is the opportunity to have submitted an application... Or arguably, the time it would have taken to make up a facebook page with a fake date of birth on it.

sodul has 'lost' very little, so he/she has very little to gain from a lawsuit.
What exactly is the incentive to sue? To expend that much time and money? For what? The burden of a moral case like this one should not fall into the hands of an individual. Or am I missing something about the legal system?

Re:Draconian Laws (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#28731989)

The only thing he/she has lost is the opportunity to have submitted an application...

In many jurisdictions, a prospective employer is specifically prohibited from asking certain types of questions during a job interview/application. It's the law. Don't like the law? Then move your company to another country where you can discriminate any way you like (but those countries tend to be shitholes).

Or arguably, the time it would have taken to make up a facebook page with a fake date of birth on it.

But now you are lying to the prospective employer. Not good, since lying is often grounds for dismissal.

sodul has 'lost' very little, so he/she has very little to gain from a lawsuit.

He has lost ability to apply & be evaluated for a job, without being discriminated against by illegal criteria.

What exactly is the incentive to sue? To expend that much time and money? For what?

Generally speaking, you sue for two reasons:

- damages (ie MONEY)
- to compel the other party to do something, or not do something

The burden of a moral case like this one should not fall into the hands of an individual.

True, these kinds of things are often dealt with by the relevant government authorities.

Re:Draconian Laws (1)

a-zarkon! (1030790) | more than 3 years ago | (#28731747)

Is the Facebook profile actually part of the job application? Is there any requirement to populate the birth date field to set up a profile? Is there any verbiage in the terms of use that you need to complete this and/or populate the field accurately? I would expect that on an official job application or within the formal paperwork you will need to fill out if hired, you will need to provide accurate data including birth date, SSN, etc. Employers need this to comply with tax codes, insurance, etc. I doubt this requirement would extend to data in a Facebook profile. Of course IANAL, don't work in HR, etc. so don't listen to me.

Personally I tend a bit toward the paranoid side and I'd want to actually talk to the corporate HR department or recruiter before providing any personal information. Maybe this will cost me a job opportunity in the future, but I pretty much don't need to work for someone who can't explain what data they require, why they need it, and what they will use it for.

Re:Draconian Laws (1)

vandit2k6 (848077) | more than 3 years ago | (#28731963)

Omg, when I apply for a job they usually ask to make a copy of my passport and you're cautious about giving them your birth date!

Re:Draconian Laws (1)

Andy_w715 (612829) | more than 3 years ago | (#28732317)

You have to provide some personal information especially your birth date, which is illegal for a prospect employer to ask.

Really? How do you prove you are of legal age to work?

Re:Draconian Laws (4, Insightful)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 3 years ago | (#28731451)

That's not the point.

The point is that Facebook is disclosing personal information to any developer that asks for it, without regard to what the information is, or what use the developer has for the information. That's against Canadian law.

The quote in the article states it most clearly: "Why does a hangman developer have to know your address?"

Re:Draconian Laws (1)

a-zarkon! (1030790) | more than 3 years ago | (#28732005)

That's why my profile lists my address at:

156 University Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301-1605

(Actually, that's the street address for Facebook corporate headquarters. If I wanted you to have my *real* address, I'll tell you. The Hangman developer can well, go hang.)

This isn't hard stuff people - you can put whatever you want in those little fields and in most cases you can just leave them blank.

Re:Draconian Laws (4, Insightful)

psyklopz (412711) | more than 3 years ago | (#28731557)

It is worth noting that Facebook violates privacy of more than just its members.

The summary does not mention this, but one of the things the Canadian study found was that users of Facebook can post photos and Tag the names of each person in the photo (whether they are on Facebook or not).

I believe there are good reasons why a non-Facebook user would not want their images posted, and for that matter, have a searchable Tag posted against that image.

Presently, I can't 'opt-out' of images of myself being posted by members, even though I am not on Facebook.

And on the same subject-- should I even need to 'opt-out'? Maybe they should require 'opt-in'?

Re:Draconian Laws (1)

Faerunner (1077423) | more than 3 years ago | (#28731817)

You could always do what I do, and avoid cameras. If your friends don't have pictures to upload, they can't tag you. You could also try asking your friends not to tag you...

Opt-in and opt-out probably wouldn't work without a Facebook account for them to link to your name/tag. Otherwise, Mr. John Smith from Rhode Island might opt-out of being tagged by telling Facebook not to allow his name, and suddenly John Smith from Maine can't tag himself in photos. Without giving Facebook identifying information (even if it's just your email address and the ID of the friend who wants to tag you), you can't opt in or out of their services. If there's a workaround for opt-outs that doesn't involve identifying yourself, I'm unaware of it. Opting in might be 'easier', but then you'd either have to make a Facebook account just to allow someone to tag you in their holiday photos, or you'd (again) have to send in identifying information to allow Facebook to tell which John Smith you are, and who can tag you. It's not worth the hassle on either end.

Re:Draconian Laws (1)

ivoras (455934) | more than 3 years ago | (#28732095)

Presently, I can't 'opt-out' of images of myself being posted by members, even though I am not on Facebook. And on the same subject-- should I even need to 'opt-out'? Maybe they should require 'opt-in'?

No, for the same reasons you can't stop anyone creating a web site (e.g. a blog) with a picture of you and the caption "This is $yourname", posting a picture of you with the same caption on a usenet group, or going to a bar, holding your picture in the air and shouting "This is a picture of $yourname".

Iff those things I enumerated could be effectively controlled and prevented, you have a reasonable chance of it succeeding with Facebook. In a society that allowed that, you also have a reasonable chance of dressing in black, worshiping a Fuhrer figure and oppressing a random minority because you officially hate the shape of their nose.

Today, everyone's famous for five mouse clicks or something such...

Re:Draconian Laws (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#28731769)

My wife signed up for a Twitter account recently. She said it was because she found she could never say anything (say, vaguely complain about a friend's manners) on Facebook because her friends would ask probing questions. How's that for irony? I told her to buy a diary.

Re:Draconian Laws (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#28732033)

> Besides, who puts something on Facebook that they _want_ to keep _private_?

Sometimes, it's the ignorant friend who posts the data that you want to keep private for you. Even if you're not a Facebook user.

[Tagged] "Grant Lawson passed out on the floor from too much cocaine at last night's orgy!!LOLOL!!!"

Re:Draconian Laws (2, Interesting)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 3 years ago | (#28732339)

Besides, who puts something on Facebook that they _want_ to keep _private_?

Facebook made it's mark by being a place you could safely share things that were only meant for friends and family. It offered a place where you had some privacy and could put up pictures that you wouldn't put on the general internet. That was what made it go big. People who would never put their kids pictures up on a my myspace profile felt this was a safe way to share pictures with grandma.

It was all a big snow job, but still, that was how Facebook came to be big. Facebook users indeed came there to put things up that they wanted to keep private.

Simple solution (1)

javacowboy (222023) | more than 4 years ago | (#28730963)

All Facebook needs to do is shut down all its servers in Canada and require Canadians to log into the U.S. site. Then it's no longer bound by Canadian law. Problem solved!

Also, this is one of the reasons why I refuse to use Facebook, despite the fact that my condo association was too lazy to develop a website and wants us all to log into their Facebook page.

Re:Simple solution (1)

jo42 (227475) | more than 4 years ago | (#28731001)

Farcebook doesn't have any servers in Canada.

Re:Simple solution (2, Insightful)

javacowboy (222023) | more than 4 years ago | (#28731037)

Then how can they be subject to Canadian law? If they're found guilty of violating privacy laws, where's the enforcement mechanism? It's not like they're going to send Mounties to the U.S. or require ISPs to block Facebook.

Re:Simple solution (2, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#28731319)

Facebook does business in Canada. SO while they cant 'shut down' the servers, they can stop Facebook from doing business in Canada.

Re:Simple solution (3, Informative)

WebCowboy (196209) | more than 3 years ago | (#28731413)

It's not like they're going to send Mounties to the U.S. or require ISPs to block Facebook.

YES facebook IS VERY MUCH bound by Canadian law and it IS enforceable to a large degree. And yes, Facebook CAN be taken to court if they do not make efforts to meet the commissioner's recommendations.

If Pandora can be ordered to refuse entry to non Americans via geolocation, etc. to adhere to DMCA and license agreements in the US, you can ABSOLUTELY expect that Facebook can be ordered to shut off access in Canada (note that this does NOT involve ISPs--it is a function of the web site itself). Proxies, etc. make enforcement imperfect, but by law in both cases the website MUST take "reasonable efforts" to abide by local laws.

Only if websites refuse to cooperate would the issue be escalated to more draconian means (the Canadian gov't CAN file lawsuits in an American juristiction or an international venue you know--and CRTC can mandate ISPs follow certain rules too)

whether this is a problem or such action is right or wrong, it CAN be done.

Re:Simple solution (1)

witch-doktor (1592325) | more than 3 years ago | (#28732049)

Yes, that's tight. Google releasing user information to Chinese authorities is another example of this same principle.

Re:Simple solution (4, Insightful)

MadCow42 (243108) | more than 4 years ago | (#28731027)

I agree - if Facebook doesn't have a Canadian legal entity, nor Canadian hosting, the answer is "who cares"? I'm Canadian, BTW.

Just because there's users on FB from all around the world, it doesn't mean that FB has to abide by all countries' laws. If that were the case, the Internet would be a hobbled and useless mess.

MadCow.

Re:Simple solution (3, Insightful)

Guspaz (556486) | more than 3 years ago | (#28731295)

If you're serving, catering, and marketing to users in Canada, and even partnering with Canadian telecoms to get your software on their phones, then a physical presence might not be required.

The mere fact that I can walk around Montreal and see advertisements for Facebook indicates that at the very least they could be forced to stop advertising in Canada, and the telecoms could be forced to stop distributing/bundling the Facebook apps. Even if they don't have a legal presence in Canada, they certainly do have *a* presence, and that's enough to force changes. That gives the Canadian government leverage to force Facebook to make changes.

"Comply with our laws or we'll cut off all your marketing and partnerships in Canada."

Re:Simple solution (2, Insightful)

WebCowboy (196209) | more than 3 years ago | (#28731313)

Just because there's users on FB from all around the world, it doesn't mean that FB has to abide by all countries' laws. If that were the case, the Internet would be a hobbled and useless mess.

MadCow.

Actually it doesn't matter where servers are located--what matters is how business is conducted in the country in question. Also, the Internet is hobbled and a mess, though it is still rather useful.

There is already historical precedent. Totalitarian governments, notably those of China and Cuba, thoroughly monitor Internet traffic and routinely block sites that conflict with their propaganda. The Pirate Bay was hosted in Sweden, but it is banned in China and several EU countries have had legal battles over allowing their citizens to visit the site. Then there are legal sites that restrict access--I cannot use Pandora from home (though at my office of my former employer I could, because the corporate proxy was in the US). People in my home country have been convicted on child pornography charges based upon underground sites hosted in another continent. By Quebec law, technically a company doing "significant business" in that province MUST provide French language pages--hosting outside the province does not prevent the "language police" from taking action if they wanted to.

Nobody, not even Facebook, can operate above the law with impunity using the excuse that their computers are not in the country. They conduct business here (notably, a number of apps ARE hosted physically in Canada, so it isn't just that end users are here--they are illegally sharing private information with Canadian facebook app hosts), they have to follow our rules.

Who cares? Well I care--whether I agree with specific laws I want to know that foreign operations are held to the same standards that we must meet ourselves. And, as is apparent in the news, the Canadian government cares a great deal too.

Re:Simple solution (2, Insightful)

MadCow42 (243108) | more than 3 years ago | (#28732471)

I don't dispute your arguments above, especially regarding Canadian-hosted/based Apps within Facebook.

However, FB cannot be held legally accountable to laws of a foreign country where they have no legal presence. Sure, that country can block the site if they think that it's hazardous to their citizens, but that's the only consequence I can even imagine being appropriate. It's a business risk at that point - losing a potential market of customers. It's not like their corporate officers could be extradited to face charges in Canada or anything like that.

MadCow.

Re:Simple solution (1)

fluffernutter (1411889) | more than 3 years ago | (#28731481)

Uhm.. If memory serves me correctly, US anti-gambling laws were applied to websites with their servers not even on this continent.

What about my mafia? (2, Funny)

motherpusbucket (1487695) | more than 4 years ago | (#28731097)

They can shut down Canada as long as the size of my Mafia does not suffer.

Re:What about my mafia? (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#28731291)

Canadian mafia members, now that's scary~
Oh no, there going to politely and reasonable try to extort from me.

Re:What about my mafia? (1)

Capt.DrumkenBum (1173011) | more than 3 years ago | (#28732415)

"Oh no, there going to politely and reasonable try to extort from me."
No, they are going to beat you with Hockey sticks until you give them money.

Signed, A Proud Canadian.

Re:Simple solution (3, Insightful)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 3 years ago | (#28731103)

They still do business in Canada when they sell ads for Canadian companies/sell stuff to Canadians/etc, now they could lose that revenue, or they could work with officials to improve the privacy of their users, thus keeping that revenue while improving their site. Do facebook really want to lose 11m users worth of revenue (and probably more long term as the EU may follow suit) ?

Re:Simple solution (1)

just fiddling around (636818) | more than 3 years ago | (#28731805)

My theory is this: being ruled illegaly invasive in Canada, which has a good international reputation, is extremely bad publicity for a user-driven website, which would scare away users from all around the world.

That's probably *the* reason why they are working with the Privacy Commissionner, and not direct canadian revenue loss.

So Freaking What (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28730995)

If the servers are not in Canada or in the CA TLD, why should anyone care? We don't accomodate Iran and China, Canada should be no different. If the Canadian government wishes they can try and block certain offending sites, but they will be no better at it than Iran and China.

Are their servers even in Canada? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28731047)

If their servers aren't in Canada, why does this matter? Or perhaps maybe they do have some sort of CDN (Content Delivery, not Canadian) network here due to 1/3 our population being on the site.

The answer is pretty simple (5, Informative)

Minion of Eris (1574569) | more than 4 years ago | (#28731053)

DO NOT RUN ANY APPS!!! Sorry for shouting, but I have been saying this to people for years now (since the first time i read the terms for FaceBook apps). I am not knocking FB as a tool in and of itself, in fact I am very grateful to them for letting my daughter find me after 16 years of seperation (true story - she searched my name and sent me a message) but come on, they state clearly that if you want to plant a garden (or whatever) the developer gets to see all of your info. just Don't Do It. thanks for the rant-space.

Re:The answer is pretty simple (5, Interesting)

eln (21727) | more than 3 years ago | (#28731389)

I agree, but on the other hand it's foolish for Facebook to have taken such a lazy approach to apps. What they should have done (and should do) is allow a developer of an App to determine what information from a user's profile they actually need for their app to operate, and allow that app access to only that information. Further, instead of the blanket "allow this app to see everything about you" screen, they should tell you precisely what information that particular app is asking for (and will be allowed to see), and let the user choose whether or not that particular information is something they're willing to share. Most people will just blindly click through anyway just like they do now, but at least if the information to be shared is clearly spelled out, there's a chance someone will think twice before clicking, and at the very least they'll be more informed of what they're actually giving out.

In addition, they should review apps (not sure if they do this now or not, if they do their criteria are laughable) before allowing them on to the site...and part of their review of an app should include whether or not the app is asking for more information than it actually needs.

And for the love of God, instead of making every stupid little quiz a separate app, Facebook should maintain its own in-house developed "quiz app" and allow random idiots to submit quizzes to it. I'm tired of having to block every stupid quiz individually because they're all individual apps. This would also have the side effect of not needing to give all of your information to a random 14 year old so you can find out which Teletubby you are...your information would only be shared by the developer of the Quiz App (Facebook itself). Of course, this would only work in conjunction with the review process mentioned above, as any other quiz apps would be rejected by the review and the developers pointed to the Facebook Quiz App.

Facebook strikes me as a company with a lackadaisical approach to privacy and a generally lazy approach to the design and implementation of site features. It angers me that the site could be so much better than it is if someone at that company gave a damn about these things.

Re:The answer is pretty simple (2, Insightful)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 3 years ago | (#28732373)

"allow a developer of an App to determine what information from a user's profile they actually need"

This sidesteps the issue under discussion. The issue is, some developers might be data mining, and some people don't desire all their data to be mined. Whether or not I am developing a legitimate app or not, I can claim to need personal data, right down to the size of a member's panties and bra. Or, maybe my app is just a front for a personnel screening service. While I claim to be developing the app, I'm mailing information to General Electric about every person who has applied for a position there. Or, more sinister, I live in Iran, and I'm mining accounts for details on protestors. As I find them, they are put on a list for the morality police to visit, and re-educate.

Developers don't need diddly squat. They can create their app, and put it up for use and/or sale. If it's any good, people will use/buy it. If it's no good, they can start over, or get out of the development business. They don't even need to know if I'm male or female, old or young, rich or poor.

Re:The answer is pretty simple (1)

eln (21727) | more than 3 years ago | (#28732453)

That's why the review process would actually look at the app and make sure it really needed what it said it needed. An additional idea to counteract what you're talking about is to review the app to make sure any personal information it uses it only used during the execution of the app, and is not logged or sent anywhere. Of course, implementing a review process like this would require effort on the part of Facebook, so it will probably never happen.

Re:The answer is pretty simple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#28731395)

I've blocked FB at the router level for my business and at my house. Thousands of useless hours saved.

Re:The answer is pretty simple (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 3 years ago | (#28731449)

That was my old policy, however check this [facebook.com] out it does allow much greater control over apps than previously available. At a minimum i have to give the app maker "my name, networks, and list of friends", which is much better than the old choice of everything/nothing, and IIRC the defaults are fairly tight too mine only gave away basic info ("Your basic info consists of your birthday, gender, hometown, political views and when you last updated your profile.") & my profile pic.

Re:The answer is pretty simple (1)

garcia (6573) | more than 3 years ago | (#28731497)

The answer is pretty simple DO NOT RUN ANY APPS!!!

Yeah, the answer to the drug problem is simple: don't buy any drugs!!! Unfortunately just because someone is accepting payment in return for illegal drugs does not mean it's legal. Thus, just because Canadian Facebook users have the option not to run applications doesn't mean that they don't/won't.

Trouble for Me? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28731079)

I was forced to sign up for Facebook in university at the point of alcoholic intoxication. I have since deactivated my Facebook account but I fear that they may be keeping hold of my fake name and address thus linking me to all of my other cybercrimes. With any luck, and since I am Canadian, this legal movement will have Facebook remove that information.

Don't you have to accept first? (1)

hansraj (458504) | more than 3 years ago | (#28731105)

Okay, the thing with holding onto your data after you have closed your account is a genuine point, but don't you see the "allow app xzy to access your profile data?" warning clear enough? If you willingly let someone pull your profile data then for sure there is no violation of a law. Well either that or Canada has some crazy laws in this regard.

It is annoying nevertheless that you can't select what portion of your profile data is visible to some app.

Re:Don't you have to accept first? (0, Offtopic)

hansraj (458504) | more than 3 years ago | (#28731145)

PS: Why can't I see any comments to any story anymore? I would appreciate if someone who has a clue replied to this post about how I go fixing it. :/

Priorities (2, Interesting)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 3 years ago | (#28731261)

How robust is Canada's analog to the 4th amendment? Does it even have one?..

A lot of the privacy debate in the West is completely ass backwards to the point of being Orwellian. Britain is, right now, the best example of that for the entire West. They have data retention mandates that cover all communications, can force you to divulge encryption keys, no written constitution (and thus no lasting written constitutional limitations like the 4th amendment) and yet they fret about what a fucking supermarket or Facebook might do to your privacy.

It's a total farce. The only people who can enable the destruction of your life or directly cause it are the government. Even identity theft is an issue created by the law because the government won't make lenders and merchants responsible for ascertaining the identity of the buyer first. So really, when you scratch beneath the surface, on basically all privacy issues that affect your life, liberty and property, the government is at least an active conspirator if not the culprit. Sometimes that's through negligence like with identity theft, but others it's willful like watering down restrictions on the issuing of warrants and wiretaps.

Re:Priorities (2, Informative)

H0p313ss (811249) | more than 3 years ago | (#28731363)

How robust is Canada's analog to the 4th amendment? Does it even have one?..

Part of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms [wikipedia.org] which is as robust as it gets in Canadian constitutional law.

8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

Notwithstanding Clause (1)

javacowboy (222023) | more than 3 years ago | (#28731555)

You're forgetting about the Notwithstanding Clause, that allows the federal government or any provincial government to immunize a law from the Charter:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notwithstanding_clause [wikipedia.org]

And, yes, the Notwithstanding Clause has actually been used, most notably and more than once by the Quebec government, which chose to maintain its French language laws despite parts of them being declared unconstitutional:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notwithstanding_clause#Use_of_the_clause [wikipedia.org]

How robust is Canada's analog to the 4th amendment? Does it even have one?..

Part of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms [wikipedia.org] which is as robust as it gets in Canadian constitutional law.

8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

Re:Notwithstanding Clause (1)

H0p313ss (811249) | more than 3 years ago | (#28731709)

You're forgetting about the Notwithstanding Clause

Uh... no I'm not. Hence the comment "as robust as it gets in Canadian constitutional law".

Invoking notwithstanding requires an act of provincial parliament, this is not something that can be thrown about like a warrant on the whim of an individual judge or a casual rule of engagement that the average cop on the beat can abuse.

So while it is possible for the MAJORITY of a provinces ELECTED representatives to agree to TEMPORARILY overlook certain constitutional provisions for "the greater good" it is rarely invoked at all. (And as an anglophone living in Quebec I can tell you that I am rather familiar with some of the cases where it has been.)

Re:Notwithstanding Clause (1)

javacowboy (222023) | more than 3 years ago | (#28731865)

I'm also a Quebec anglo, BTW, and I follow the English and French press well enough to have a clear idea of what's going on.

All one needs is a majority government (federal or provincial) to override the Charter. Once that law is passed and protected from the Charter, it's up for renewal every five years:

Such a declaration lapses after five years or a lesser time specified in the clause, although the legislature may re-enact the clause indefinitely.

So, on an issue on which the two major federal or provincial parties have a consensus (ex: support of Bill 101 in Quebec), all that has to be done is vote to extend the Charter-violating law every five years. It doesn't matter if it's a majority or a minority government. Both major parties will vote for it and it will be passed.

Re:Notwithstanding Clause (1)

H0p313ss (811249) | more than 3 years ago | (#28732081)

Perhaps I was unclear. Acts of parliament must be passed by the members by means of a vote. These are not edicts. (Which I felt was worth pointing out to our cousins to the south who frequently forget that they are not the only democracy.)

I was not referring to whether or not the governing party held a majority. (But I can see the confusion as we tend to over use that meaning especially when minority governments are sitting.)

Re:Notwithstanding Clause (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#28732341)

You're forgetting about the Notwithstanding Clause, that allows the federal government or any provincial government to immunize a law from the Charter:

You're forgetting that the notwithstanding Clause can only be used to override some Rights, specifically section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of the Charter.

Other Rights cannot be overridden by the notwithstanding clause.

Re:Priorities (3, Informative)

abigor (540274) | more than 3 years ago | (#28731471)

As another poster mentioned, the Canadian equivalent of the 4th Amendment is Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

More to the point, Canada has a very powerful Privacy Act ("An Act to extend the present laws of Canada that protect the privacy of individuals and that provide individuals with a right of access to personal information about themselves") that limits the government's ability to collect and retain private information, and a Privacy Commissioner to enforce it. I don't think there's anything comparable in the US, as Canada's privacy laws are probably the toughest in the western world.

Facebook app privacy (3, Interesting)

furby076 (1461805) | more than 3 years ago | (#28731315)

Here is an idea facebook. Give the user an option to not give the app creators 100% access to the facebook users data. I reject all of those apps because all of them expect me to give up my data - all of my data. It is very invasive.

I'm assuming facebook gives this control to the app makers - but as we know - when you have an option and it is free then why not use it?

Facebook privacy not that bad! (2, Interesting)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 3 years ago | (#28731361)

Unlike many slashdoters i feel the need to keep in touch with my friends outweighs the need to live in a basement with a tinfoilhot keeping my data (that nobody wants as anyway) private, so i do have a facebook account *gasp*. I have always taken care to keep my data private though, this is so that while i can tell my friends that im a racist, in-bread(hence all the spelling mistakes), thieving, crack addict, hopefully prospective employers will never know about it. It's surprising that facebook is in trouble now, because i was surprised at how well i can keep my data private while still using 3rd party apps. Originally there was no privacy on FB, then you could protect yourself from facebook themselves, but if you installed one bad app all your data goes straight to the CIA, now this page, that i noticed the other day in my regular app clean-up (how could i not accept an invite to pacman), allows you pretty granular control over your data, ranging from all your data (which some apps may use) to "name, networks, and list of friends", which I'm pretty happy to hand out.

Privacy is not black/white, i was never happy giving a stupid flash game developer access to all my information for whatever evil purposes they have, but tbh ill trade my list of friends and name (which they can surely indirectly get from my friends list of friends) for a stupid flash game anyday! I assume the problem the canadians have is that even without installing any apps, if all my friends do they get access to my name, my list of friends, my wall posts, photos of me taken by others and photos of others including me. Perhaps that will be the next push in the facebook privacy API, stopping friends from giving your data away?

Gah! (1)

DarthVain (724186) | more than 3 years ago | (#28731377)

Gee a company operating outside of Canada does not adhere to Canadian Law? Impossible!

Seriously though this is just the Privacy Commissioner's Officer playing the political game. Target some company with "Gee Whiz" factor and make a stink. This is all to get PR and good vibes. See look, we do stuff, aren't you happy? Now back to work!

Granted Facebook does business in Canada, but it isn't like they are going to lose any business, nor can they be stopped from operating. If anything this warning may scare off a few Canadian customers, but in the large scheme of things really a drop in the bucket for Facebook.

What Privacy Law? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#28731433)

Canada's constitution is in the same shape as the U.S.constitution: BURNED.

In other news ( in case you've been spider-holed with
Richard B. Cheney) : Iran ( aka Ahmadinejad [wikipedia.org] is crumbling.

Yours In Revolution,
Kilgore Trout, Marxist

Ignorance should not be an excuse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#28731443)

Facebook (or any other social networking site for that matter) ought to have, in addition to their myriad of legal disclaimers and consent forms, some form of intelligence waiver requirement before allowing user to create accounts. Something akin to those signs you see at amusement parks -- "You must be this high to ride". Like "U must be dis smart to use Facebuk". Otherwise, go back to playing spider solitaire or bejeweled, etc.

Adding an Application/Friend is the same (1)

KCWaldo (1555553) | more than 3 years ago | (#28731457)

To me adding an application is the same as adding a friend. A friend can be just as destructive with the information, and alot of people will add anyone who asks to be a friend. At least the applications are bound by privacy rules. As for the not deleting all the data when you delete your account to me is something that needs to be cleaned up. If you say delete my account you should cease to exist to them, the clean up process should take care and be able to handle broken links.

"people come to share and not to hide" (1)

The_Duck271 (1494641) | more than 3 years ago | (#28731493)

I read "people come to share and not to hide" as "privacy isn't that important in social networking." If this is really expressing an attitude that I shouldn't really have an expectation of privacy on Facebook, that's stupid. I should be able to have such an expectation (which isn't to say that I do...).

Eventually someone will get screwed over (1)

fluffernutter (1411889) | more than 3 years ago | (#28731637)

We've already seen amusing stories about US/Canadian citizens by chance finding their faces plastered all over stores in Czechoslovakia it's only a matter of time before someone gets seriously screwed over by lack of controls on privacy. Everyone on slashdot knows how to properly use or not use Facebook but everyone on slashdot is not most people on Facebook. I think the average Facebook user has no idea how much risk they could put themselves under.

Furthermore, if we are going to go forward with the cloud mentality I think the Canadian government is asking some important questions! How do we have a central cloud that acts as a repository of data but yet not sacrifice each and every individual's right to maintain absolute control over their own data? I am Canadian and for the record I tend to not like a lot of things about the running of the Canadian government but sorry folks I think they got this one right.

I set up my own email server in my house to avoid these issues and I will not be comfortable putting any of my personal life on remote servers until these things are hashed out.

People are surprised when I have this conversation (1)

topham (32406) | more than 3 years ago | (#28731649)

People are surprised when I have this conversation with them.

They think I'm nuts until I make it clear that the reason I don't make stupid little facebook apps is because I don't agree with their information sharing.
I use facebook (no, I have an account, I seldom use it), but I don't add apps.

Do what you want, but I think Facebook should make it perfectly clear what type of information is being given to app developers. A checklist confirming what type of information that particular developer gets access to. Something clear, and obvious. I suspect the number of apps, and type of apps, people would add would be substantially different.

Facebook, even under Canadian law, can share all the same data. They must however make it very clear what is actually being shared and with whom. (So that the user can go back to the companaies involved and file with them to have the information removed).

To the extent that Facebook advertises and offers services directly to Canadians they should be held to the same legal requirements as anyone else. By the way, the Canadian privacy act is actually quite lenient, if people are properly informed of the information to be shared.

Who's holding a gun to their head and saying share (1)

dodden (1170431) | more than 3 years ago | (#28731689)

I suppose they could go use one of the other jacked up sites out there like myface or spacebook

Wouldn't be surprised if it broke British law too (1)

jimicus (737525) | more than 3 years ago | (#28731809)

but the UK ICO has only once taken serious action that I'm aware of and it's had the power to do so for 10 years or more.

Let's see, under UK law:

  • You mustn't send personal data outside the EU without the user's consent unless processes are in place to ensure that UK data protection law is still followed. All well and good for Facebook itself, but what about applications?
  • You mustn't keep personal data any longer than what you need it for. Yet facebook openly admit that they don't actually delete accounts even when they're asked to.

And Facebook has offices in London. So yes, they are subject to this law.

The "user beware" argument is faulty (2, Interesting)

sherriw (794536) | more than 3 years ago | (#28732035)

While many comments here are along the lines of... well then just don't use any apps. Or... just let the people who don't know any better, suffer the consequences of their ignorance. Etc. This is a faulty argument. If we always take the stance that no one should be protected from exploitation because of their ignorance then we will all end up in that boat.

Maybe you're so smart, you know better than to use Facebook at all or maybe just keep your personal info off it. But many people don't know this and Facebook actively encourages you to fill in and post as much info as possible.

Ok, you're too smart for Facebook. But are you overweight? Do you read the ingredients and nutrition info of everything you eat? Maybe we should allow restaurants and food companies to fill their products with trans-fats and all kinds of harmful but tasty chemical garbage, or exorbitant calories because well, if you're too stupid to read the ingredients or research the process to make the food- you deserve what you get.

Ok, maybe you are a conscientious eater and are careful of what you put in your body. You're too smart here. But do you use a cell phone? Maybe we should let cell phone makers create devices that emit tons of radiation and make all the cellphone users who are too stupid to research how much radiation their particular model of phone emits suffer the consequences of their stupidity.

Do you know the safety rating of your car?
Do you know the actual interest rates that payday lenders and/or your credit cards are charging you?

Etc, etc etc.

None of us are totally free of ignorance in every single area of our lives. User beware will bite all of us in the ass eventually. It needs to be a two way street. Buyers need to be aware and sellers need to be responsible for what they produce and how they treat their customers.

The problem with Facebook. (1)

Sukhbir (961063) | more than 3 years ago | (#28732083)

My only problem with Facebook is that why they can't allow a complete account removal. They just disable the accounts. With a simple log in, the account is re - enabled.

I joined Facebook on the insistence of my friends. However, I no longer feel it useful, they are too many cluttered apps (which I can't tolerate) and other stuff which make it simply unusable. I tried to delete my account, it doesn't work. I emailed Facebook support, they said you have to delete every post, every friend, every link you created manually. I have 250 friends. How am I supposed to manually delete all data?

This sucks. Why are they so insistent with disabling accounts and not allowing users to completely delete them? I feel this is a clear violation of my privacy. I don't like something, it should be deleted. At least users should have this much right.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...