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!

Who Owns Your Social Data? You Do, Sort of

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 6 years ago | from the don't-kid-yourself dept.

Social Networks 110

eweekhickins writes "Mad about Facebook's treatment of Robert Scoble? 'The idea for people to move their social graph from one service to other is a fabulous benefit,' Wikia co-founder Jimmy Wales told eWEEK. 'To me, it's a benefit to customers. People should be very wary about services that are uptight about that kind of thing in an effort to lock you out of the customer.' The problem is that while the profile data may be yours and yours alone, your address book contains the names and e-mail addresses of your friends, family and business contacts. So who owns the data?"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Question. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21916640)

Why is that everytime ScuttleMonkey is 'editing' on Slashdot, he breaks it?

Is it only me... (-1, Offtopic)

Bananatree3 (872975) | more than 6 years ago | (#21916732)

Or is slashdot look like it just got blended?: Screenshot of slashdot from my browser []

Re:Is it only me... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21916774)

Me too.

Re:Is it only me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21916776)

looked like that too a minute ago, seems to have got better now. A few minutes ago i was getting a service not available error.

Re:Is it only me... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21916986)

Ron Paul 2008. Vote for freedom.

Slashdot slashdotted itself. (2, Funny)

sw1tchd0ct0r (630126) | more than 6 years ago | (#21917004)

I got a 503 for a couple minutes there before that, a rare sight indeed!


Smordnys s'regrepsA (1160895) | more than 6 years ago | (#21920594)

I loaded up about 20 stories I hadn't yet seen, and when I browsed the comments, boom, they're gone.

...did I /. /.?

5:00 Production Server Outage (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21916680)

Ahh the 5:00 production server outage.

Because nobody wants to be at work at 2:00 am.

Um. The guy with the storage? (3, Insightful)

Reality Master 201 (578873) | more than 6 years ago | (#21916686)

Possession is 9 tenths of the law, right? The guy with the disk has the data. Controlling your personal data once it's not on a medium you physically can control access to is about the same impossible problem as DRM.

Re:Um. The guy with the storage? (5, Informative)

teasea (11940) | more than 6 years ago | (#21916870)

Possession is 9 tenths of the law, right?

Nope. It gets repeated often enough, but has no basis in law. It's right up there with "cops gotta tell you they're a cop if you ask them directly."

Though I suppose being in possession of stolen goods...

Re:Um. The guy with the storage? (1)

Jack9 (11421) | more than 6 years ago | (#21918496)

There is no basis in law, I agree, unless you count history. When you need to litigate and there is discretion because there is no definitive legal precedent, it applies. So ya, it has a basis in PRACTICE. In theory there's no point to fighting every ticket, in practice, it's a good strategy.

Re:Um. The guy with the storage? (4, Interesting)

TheBlunderbuss (852707) | more than 6 years ago | (#21916972)

I guess the bank owns your money, since they keep it as data in their servers.

Re:Um. The guy with the storage? (2, Informative)

jdoeii (468503) | more than 6 years ago | (#21923554)

Actually, the bank does own the money you deposit there. When you open an account and deposit the money, the ownership is transferred to the bank. You get a claim against the bank for the amount of the deposit. The bank becomes your debtor, but the actual money is no longer yours.

Re:Um. The guy with the storage? (2, Interesting)

KlaymenDK (713149) | more than 6 years ago | (#21923682)

I guess the bank owns your money, since they keep it as data in their servers.
In a way, they do, yes. For instance, that's how they finance loans: lending your money to someone else, asking a fee for the service, and paying you a prize for letting them use your money while they hold it for you. They earn their money from the fee/prize discrepancy, but your money is what enables their business in the first place.

The difference is that money can't be copied without incurring a loss of value, but information can, and indeed may thereby increase in value. ...There's "just" the matter of who gets to decide whether, how, and with whom that information is shared.

Incorrect. The contract defines who owns what. (3, Interesting)

imtheguru (625011) | more than 6 years ago | (#21917468)

The contract agreed upon by the two parties will specify who can do what to the data. This is usually a series of Ts and Cs followed by an "I Agree" widget or the like.

Always read the fine print.


Re:Incorrect. The contract defines who owns what. (2, Insightful)

canuck57 (662392) | more than 6 years ago | (#21918520)

Always read the fine print.

Yep, and one of the things is we reserve the tight to change it without notice. Gotta love that.

Where is the firm signing the contract ? (1)

aepervius (535155) | more than 6 years ago | (#21920440)

If it is in the US, I have no idea. But if it is in EU, there is this slightly interesting bit of data protection, which gives me a right of checking, correcting and deleting any personal data retained on their server. Meaning if I would leave such an european service for another , I can ask them to delete the data, and they HAVE to do it by law. Whatever the contract said, since the contract has to respect the european data protection law, and cannot nullify a law.

Re:Incorrect. The contract defines who owns what. (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 6 years ago | (#21921946)

Not always. If I put a gun to your head and say "sign this contract or you will die", I will not become the owner. It is called extortion.

It becomes more difficult if they say: sign this or you will get no medical treatment. Sign this, or you do not get a drivers licence. Sign this, or you do not get a free pencil.

The line between extortion and a deal where both parties benefit can be very thing and I do not know where the line is.

Re:Um. The guy with the storage? (1)

wikinerd (809585) | more than 6 years ago | (#21920066)

Possession makes some sense in absence of law, but law is designed to balance possesion with other issues. A thief may *control* your expensive HiFi set after a burglary because they now *possess* it, but they don't *own* it according to law.

HTTP Error 503 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21916692)

Holy sweet Jesus, what are you doing to the front page server cowboy neal?!

You do. (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 6 years ago | (#21916706)

You own information you created, end of story. If i don't own my personal address book, then no one has the right to own any IP. I'm guessing no one wants to open THAT can o worms?

Re:You do. (1)

garcia (6573) | more than 6 years ago | (#21916930)

Actually, the marketers that are scanning those networks own you and your data. Unless you show absolutely nothing, to no one, they are collecting something about you and those you are connected to.

If you aren't showing any data to anyone then you belong to a social networking site for no reason.

Re:You do. (1)

cmacb (547347) | more than 6 years ago | (#21919162)

If you aren't showing any data to anyone then you belong to a social networking site for no reason.

Actually I suspect a lot of people just try it out of curiosity. I did. That's how I found out about Gmail several years ago and I've been using it ever since.

With Facebook though, I tried it, and partially because of security concerns quickly concluded the whole concept (and implementation) sucked. Fortunately I hadn't provided much information during the sign-up, and most of what I did provide was fake. Exception being my real name.

In order to keep monitoring what they are up to (in case they ever stop sucking) I created a new ID with a fake name to go along with the other fake information. In spite of Facebook's hi-sounding philosophical statements on the subject, there are a lot of fake users out there.

I've learned through incidences such as this that their stated mission and what they are actually doing are two different things. If they were still only open to college kids with proven school e-mail addresses etc. it would be a different matter. Once they started trying to get the MySpace user counts their original philosophy (if it truly existed) went out the window.

Your "no reason" proposition is wrong in another respect though. I have a similar fake ID on Orkut. Both Orkut and Facebook allow you to join various "groups" with special interests. These things are as useful as the old Internet Newsgroups used to be (and still are in a few cases). If you can find a sufficiently active and well moderated special interest group in one of these services it may well be worth your time.

Facebook and the like might be useful services as long as they don't get in such a hurry to earn those ridiculous 15B valuations. They may even be valuable now for all the college kids to keep track of one another. Finally, it will be very useful in the future to employers who figure out how to check up on what the latest interviewees were like in their "private" moments.

Enjoy it while you can kids!

Re:You do. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21917648)

You own information you created, end of story.

You have something in common with the RIAA - you believe that IP rights are absolute, regardless of whether the owner of the IP wishes to benefit from the distribution of the information. The problem arises when you choose to copy the information that's in your personal address book to a place outside of your personal address book. I don't think the situation remains as simple as you think it does if you choose to do that.

Re:You do. (1)

smurgy (1126401) | more than 6 years ago | (#21918216)

What can of worms?
If I speak, do I own the soundwaves? The thought patterns created in the ears of people near me?
Obviously no.
These are media (in the most literal sense of the word) that I have no direct control over once I have created a pattern of meaning within them, short of murdering the person who heard my words.
Similarly, if you choose to view information you store on a server physically remote from yourself, over which you have no absolute administration rights as owned by you... then you are mistaken.
Short of physically destroying said server you have a necessarily limited ownership of that information, and even then a copy could easily have been made between the time you created the information and the time you acted to destroy it.
You do have a valid legal claim to having rights over it, and a basis for recourse within the legal system which is balanced by any agreements you assented to in the process of gaining access to said server.
Even the notion of "I created it so it's mine" is easily broken. I work as a creative, and I am very aware that any creative effort I produce while on salaried time belongs to those who are paying me. Should I wish this to change my recourse is to resign my position and find a way to market my talents.
At the end of the day, rights only exist as legally defined, maintained and enforced. Absolute rights (or natural rights [] )in the terms you describe here are a wonderful ideal, but a poor actuality.
In the words of Jeremy Bentham:
Natural rights is simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptible rights, rhetorical nonsense -- nonsense upon stilts.

Re:You do. (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 6 years ago | (#21918658)

you miss the blindingly obvious problem with your logic that personal information is completely different to creative work for money.

nice job otherwise genius.

Re:You do. (1)

smurgy (1126401) | more than 6 years ago | (#21919548)

And you fail to address the majority of my point - that you cannot control remotely stored information, and thus your assertion of ownership rights, while brave and indeed admirable, is not matched by your ability to defend that right in any meaningful sense.

Responding to one line is great troll tactics, but try entering into an intelligent discussion just this once.


Ownership vs. Actions, Politeness vs. Copyability (1)

billstewart (78916) | more than 6 years ago | (#21919752)

Ownership isn't necessarily a useful concept when you're talking about information, compared to what actions you're capable of doing with information and what actions are appropriate or polite to do with it.

I think the "ownership" that's being asserted here is Facebook asserting that it owns the data about friend relationships and friend email and can limit what users like Scoble can do with it, and that it's doing that because it thinks users will be happier that way than if anybody can do anything they want with that info. For instance

  • If you sell your friends email addresses, or friends-of-friends addresses, to Spammers-R-Us, that's obviously rude, and Facebook probably wants to forbid that because otherwise nobody'd trust it with their email address. On just about any social network, you're not more than six degrees of separation away from some annoying spammer.
  • If you copy your friends' email addresses into your own desktop-based email system, on the other hand, that's perfectly reasonable, and as long as you don't send them mail that's outside what you'd expect from the relationship you have in the social network, sending them email is fine. (If it's a basically-social-discussion network, telling them what music you've been playing recently is usually polite, and inviting them to join your Multi-Level Marketing Network is obviously rude, and you can usually tell polite from rude when you see it.)
  • If you use one of those new-shiny-Web2.0-style online address management services, and it doesn't suck, and it doesn't do rude things with your information, I think copying your friends' contact info into it is probably ok, assuming you trust the system to respect the privacy of the information you're giving it. Gmail/Hotmail/Yahoomail, for instance, are probably fine, though obviously there's some privacy risk there (but probably no more than on the social-network site itself.) Some people might consider that privacy violation to be rude, but most people who feel that way probably aren't using their main email address on the social-network site.
  • It's been a year or two since I looked at Plaxo - I remember deciding that it was well-intentioned but sucked, though I don't remember if that was because of its privacy policies (if any) or its user interfaces. Social-network and information-management services that don't think clearly about privacy implications are a dime a dozen, as are sites that do think about it and want to exploit users.

But if you're a social-network provider, how do you decide what's the boundary between Contact-management services that are ok, and services that will annoy your users? Should you be more conservative than your average user, with a blanket policy against them, to avoid the risk that some of those services will annoy your user base? Should you be more liberal than average, because your users will get annoyed if you're overreachingly picky? Should you default to a greedy-capitalist approach that treats that contact information as your treasured marketing product that you don't want to share with other possibly-competing service providers?

I think Facebook probably overreacted here. I'd expect them to be more conservative than Myspace, but this probably goes too far.

But who owns version control? (2, Interesting)

G4from128k (686170) | more than 6 years ago | (#21916766)

You may "own the data" but you don't control the version of the server software that hosts, accesses, and manipulates that data. If decides to implement super nifty web 3.0 whizzy stuff that is not compatible with your OS or browser, then your data is no longer accessible to you. Sure, you can complain bitterly about the "upgrade" but if you use a minority OS or browser, your complaints won't get too far. The lack of client-level version control is a real problem with social networks and other web-based software concepts.

With slashdot looking like it does (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21916770)

with the invalidated markup slashdot is spitting out, I can post anything I want and noone will see it. So I own my data.

I like microsoft
I sometimes enjoy watching pornographic movies with no females in them
Sometimes I dream about Jack Thompson

Re:With slashdot looking like it does (1)

eggnoglatte (1047660) | more than 6 years ago | (#21920316)

I sometimes enjoy watching pornographic movies with no females in them

Sometimes I dream about Jack Thompson

Curse you! I am never going to get that picture out of my brain. This is worse than goatse.

Who? (4, Insightful)

Matt Perry (793115) | more than 6 years ago | (#21916794)

Mad about Facebook's treatment of Robert Scoble?
Nope, because I don't know who he is or how he was treated. How about a better summary so people know what you are talking about?

Robert Scoble is an attention whore. He is .... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21917400)

He is slightly less an attention whore than Jimmy Jimbo Porno Wales. Scoble made 5,000 "friends" on facebook, which begs the question, who the fuck would befriend such a douchebag? (And I use "btc" correctly here.) And then Scoble tried to move his 5,000 friends' data, not his data, but THEIR data to a different site. In response facebook defaced Scoble and Porno Wales edited an exciting entry all about.

Together they are all damage and my Internet routes around them.

Re:Who? (2, Insightful)

zenslug (542549) | more than 6 years ago | (#21917986)

Here's his wikipedia link: []

"Scoble is best known for his popular blog, Scobleizer, which came to prominence during his tenure as a technical evangelist at Microsoft."

According to a blog on the NYTimes: []

"Mr. Scoble was kicked off of Facebook because he used a preview version of a Plaxo service that logged onto his Facebook account to download the names and e-mail addresses of his friends."

In the man's own words from his blog: []

"My account has been "disabled" for breaking Facebook's Terms of Use. I was running a script that got them to keep me from accessing my account."

I didn't know who he was until looking him up, either. The summary could have been a lot clearer.

Re:Who? (4, Informative)

ubernostrum (219442) | more than 6 years ago | (#21918318)

Scoble is a somewhat-famous blogger. He became known in that community a few years back when he was working for Microsoft; he was considered unusual in that he was a "company spokesman" who didn't speak in press releases, and openly criticized Microsoft from time to time. He's since moved on to starting his own company which does some sort of video podcasting thing.

The story in question here is that he got himself banned from Facebook by using a beta version of a program which was designed to log into your account and start screen-scraping out your friends' info, theoretically for purposes of slurping it into an email addressbook or whatever. Facebook indicated that this violated their terms of service and gave him the boot. He proceeded to raise a stink about how he couldn't get "his" data out of Facebook. He was alternately the subject of sympathy (from people who like him and/or dislike Facebook) and scorn (from people who wondered how exactly someone else's personal info was "his").

Re:Who? (1)

lbft (950835) | more than 6 years ago | (#21919718)

It's important to also note that Facebook itself does this kind of screen scraping.

Re:Who? (3, Informative)

viggie (1198131) | more than 6 years ago | (#21920128)

As for arguing the reasons of ban. I think any free service will have a clause that says something like,
"... reserves the right to ban / terminate any member account without assigning any reason whatsoever".

I looked up in Facebook terms page. Sure enough, it exists under the heading 'Termination'. Hard to argue after accepting this condition.

Re:Who? (1)

Corwn of Amber (802933) | more than 6 years ago | (#21922840)

Yeah, right, everyone carefully reads those.

Whenever I see an "I Accept" bullshit llicense thing, I consider it null and void. Because it needlessly interrupts the flow of the process of whatever it is I'm doing. Registering on a web site? No strings attached. I DON'T accept their terms and conditions. If they kick me, well, it's their server, they can do that. I don't trust them, anyway, so my info is fake. Installing a program? Well, I interpret the "I Agree" button as meaning "I allow this package to be installed".

Re:Who? (1)

bar-agent (698856) | more than 6 years ago | (#21918512)


Re:Who? (1)

Matt Perry (793115) | more than 6 years ago | (#21919072)

I'm supposed to RTFA to understand the summary to see if I want to read the article? What kind of fruitloop are you?

Re:Who? (1)

bar-agent (698856) | more than 6 years ago | (#21919960)

What kind of fruitloop are you?


I'm the green ones.

not according to the law! (0, Offtopic)

Asshat_Nazi (946431) | more than 6 years ago | (#21916802)

btw, i ate out your grandpas ass!!!



I was still in High School, I had a big cock and was horny all the time, jerked off at least 3 times a day. My body is small and slim with very little hair, 5"4",125lbs. My fat cut 7" cock looked huge on me. I had been jerking off thinking about gay sex lately, I was very turned on by the fantasy of having sex with an older man, and having a cock in my ass.

I got a job working after school and weekends at a antique shop, it was ran by 2 older gay gentleman, very nice gentleman who were always flirting and teasing me. An older very distinguished looking handsome customer came in the store, he was a silver haired fox who looked like he had money.

The owners knew him well, he bought a small end table and asked the owners if I could help him unload it at his house, I thought this was kind of suspicous since it didn't weigh much but my horniness and curiousity made me jump at the chance. We rode in his SUV to a big house in a ritzy neighborhood and I carried the end table into his house. He gave me a tour, it was huge and very nice, there was an indoor hot tub and he asked me if I wanted to soak for a while, I told him I didn't have a swim suit and he laughed and told me I could go without, he always did.

I was getting turned on so I started to undress, my tank top came off first and my back was turned to him and I pulled down my cutoffs, no underwear and bent over to finish removing my cutoffs,
it was a turn on to expose my ass to him, he watched me climb into the hot tub, my cock was rock hard. I watched him take off his shirt, he had a sexy chest covered with silver hair, he pulled down his pants and underwear in one motion exposing a beautiful 8" cut cock, very fat. We sat in the tub for five minutes talking, he asked me if I wanted a massage, I moved over close to him with my back to him and sort of sat on his lap, I could feel that big cock, I started moving my ass around until it was between my cheeks, I moved up and down, it felt so hot, made my asshole spasm. He was rubbing my shoulders and back, he reached around and started massaging my inner thighs making my cock twitch, finally he started stroking my cock, I was so turned on it was all I could do not to cum. He had me stand up and started tonguing my ass while stroking my cock, I was in pleasure overload and exploded cum after about two minutes of this.

We went into his bedroom, still naked and dried off, he put his hands on my shoulders and gently pushed me to my knees, grabbed the back of my head and guided me to his cock. I sucked on it hungrily feeling it get harder in my mouth, when he was rock hard he guided me to the bed and had me lay on my stomach. He ate my ass again this time harder, getting his tongue up inside me, this made my cock hard again, I relaxed and felt my boypussie open up. Next he slowly inserted one of his fingers , it kind of hurt at first but then I started to love the feeling. Two fingers was next with some lube, he two finger fucked me for along time, I loved how it felt, like I was getting stretched. I was moaning and moving my ass up and down.

He stopped and put his big cock back in my mouth, I sucked him for maybe a minute and he pulled out and rolled on a condom, had me get down doggie style got behind me and pushed that big cock head against my tight hole. He slowly pushed, I thought it was to big and would never fit, all of a sudden it popped in, the sensation took my breath away, it felt so huge and it hurt a little, but I was starting to relax and it was feeling better by the second.

He slowly pushed in until he was deep inside me and moved in and out very slowly to start with, it still burned but the thought of getting fucked, having a big cock inside me was such a turn on.

He fucked me for a long time, after I got used to it and fully relaxed the feeling was pure pleasure. My cock was rock hard.

The pace got faster and harder, finally I came again, without even touching my cock, such intense pleasure. He came and stayed inside me, I layed flat on my stomch with him still inside me, he slowly went limp, slipped out of me and rolled off me.

Own your Facebook data (4, Informative)

christopherfinke (608750) | more than 6 years ago | (#21916810)

After the whole Robert Scoble fiasco, I wrote a Firefox extension [] that saves the data from your Facebook friends' profiles (including their e-mail addresses) in CSV format as you view them so that you can import that data into other mail clients or social networks.

Re:Own your Facebook data (1)

rHBa (976986) | more than 6 years ago | (#21919492)

Wow, I wasn't aware you could do OCR within a firefox plugin... respect!

Re:Own your Facebook data (1)

Rolodexterous (1212954) | more than 6 years ago | (#21919946)

I did something similar. I wrote a tool, Rolodexterous [] , that makes Facebook into a read/write contact manager: use the info FB has or add your own. Export it if you like, dhare it w/ friends based on your social graph, etc. Visually it is like Excel embedded into FB.

Who looks at your data? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21916814)

The snooping gov't stealing your data is the real problem. In fact, it is a violation of your 4th Amendment rights. Add it to the list of gov't violations:
They violate the 1st Amendment by opening mail, caging demonstrators and banning books like "America Deceived" from Amazon.
They violate the 2nd Amendment by confiscating guns during Katrina.
They violate the 4th Amendment by conducting warrant-less wiretaps.
They violate the 5th and 6th Amendment by suspending habeas corpus.
They violate the 8th Amendment by torturing.
They violate the entire Constitution by starting 2 illegal wars based on lies and on behalf of a foriegn gov't.
Support Dr. Ron Paul and save us all.
Last link (unless Google Books caves to the gov't and drops the title):
America Deceived (book) []

Re:Who looks at your data? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21917196)

How come such a well written book never got a publishing deal?

"Anthony met Maximillian years ago during their time as operatives for an extreme right wing sect of the neo-con Republican Party"
"One second. I am getting my head together"
"President's photographic memory raced calling up"
Shit, it's like a bad episode of Michael Moore Does Fanfic

not according to me! (-1, Troll)

Asshat_Nazi_v2.0 (989409) | more than 6 years ago | (#21916836)

btw, i ate out your grandpas ass!!!



During my years as a councilor at a Boy Scout camp, I have had the chance of many experiences. The chance to see naked boys in the community showers and the sight of sexy bodies going for a dip in the lake but one memory comes back clearer than ever.

First let me introduce myself. My name is Joshua, but friends call me Josh for short, I am 17 years old and about 5 foot 11 with a really toned body. I run 2 mile each morning right after I wake up to keep myself in shape. I had always loved the outdoors and I have plans to be a teacher when I got older so I thought teaching kids is going to be a great experience for me and that's how I became involved in the scouting program.

It was my second year at scout camp being a councilor and that comes with some major seniority, and that was the ability to have the over 21 staff buy me alcohol. One night after a stressful day of working with a bunch of crying whiny little kids I decided its time to crack open my 1/5 of jack. I sit back in my tent relaxed just slowly drinking the night away when Caleb popped his head into my tent. He was 16 years old with a body to die for, he was center for his High School football team and had a six

pack any guy would give his left nut for.

"Hey josh," Caleb muttered, I could tell he had been drinking, " come over to my tent, I cant find my flash light." So I stand to the best of my ability and stumble following him over to his tent, and fall in, shining my light around till he finds his. Then I take the last drink of my jack and lay the bottle down why I lay there looking up into the dark tent ceiling. All of a sudden my dick began to get rock hard as a thought of a plan. I pulled my 8 inch dick out and started jacking off and said "Caleb I am going to masturbate in your tent." "Na you wouldn't dare do anything like that" he replied as he shined his flashlight on my hand as I slowly pumped my cock. He looked at my cock with wide eyes as I began to pump a
little faster. I saw him reach over and take off his boxers and began to play with his 5-1/2 inch cock. I laughed at him and said "Wow you really do have a small cock why don't you jack me off and see how it is to hold a real cock on this boy hands."

He looked at me and shook his head no, I reach over and forced his hand away from his cock and began to jack him off he followed suit and began to do the same with me. It feel good because he was going at a fairly fast pace and I began to moan softly. Then he did something I didn't expect he move his mouth over my dick and began to softly suck it. His bobbed his head up and down making sure to please my dick equally with his tongue. He moved his dick over my mouth and I began to suck it, taking it in inch by inch till I hit his pubes then I began to take it in and out slowly. I took my mouth off his dick and used my tongue to pleasure the left ball then the right, then taking them both into my mouth being careful. As we continued to 69 it up, I thought I heard a noise outside so I moved slightly and apparently he took this as a sigh to stop and got off, I was pissed so I grabbed his hand and placed it back on my cock as he began to jerk me off again he got up took off his boxers and said to me Fuck me josh, Fuck me hard"

I couldn't resist this little hot stud so I placed him on the floor and put my cock to his virgin hole and began to softly push inward. I heard him grunt softly as in pain and I stopped; keeping my cock still it was about half way in. Keep going I heard him mutter and I began to put more pressure till my pubes touched his ass. I said here we go as I began to slowly fuck this tight virgin man hole enjoying each pleasure able in and out I took. I began to pump faster and faster letting my balls made contact with his ass.

i am Cumming I muttered as I released 5 huge squirts of my man juice inside his virgin hole. I quickly drew out and turned him over and began to give him a blow job leaving nothing in question and within 30 seconds my mouth was filled full of this studs seed as I drank each gulp that he so graciously gave me. I gave him a firm kiss on the lips and said Good night my Caleb as I walked back to my tent and fell asleep at 2:09.

The question provides the answer! (3, Interesting)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 6 years ago | (#21916880)

The answer to "Who Owns Your Social Data?" is in the question itself. It's like asking..."Who owns your shirt?" Of course me. I repeat...I own my property. Period.

I am getting disappointed with the way Slashdot frames questions. The other day, they ran [] whose contents in my opinion were not in sync with the title. May be these Slashdot folks need a refresher course.

Re:The question provides the answer! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21917230)

Who owns the message above (i.e. social data) that you just typed in? You, period?

Re:The question provides the answer! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21917358)

The answer to "Who Owns Your Social Data?" is in the question itself. It's like asking..."Who owns your shirt?" Of course me. Of course me. I repeat...I own my property. Period.

Well that's a great example because you actually don't have full ownership to your clothes: Got a Nike or Diesel Sweeties t-shirt? Yeah, that single shirt is yours, but you don't own it enought to make more of them.

'Who Owns Your Social Data?' has similar legal grey area, sort of like copyrighting national laws based on giving them an index & page numbers.

Jimmy Wales can talk about the benefit of being nice to the customer all he wants, but there has to be is clear legal rights of ownership by individuals and the public. Copyright was supposed to be about that the beginning, but that's gone to hell. Being nice doesn't cut it.

Re:The question provides the answer! (1)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | more than 6 years ago | (#21917600)

It's like asking..."Who owns your shirt?" Of course me. I repeat...I own my property. Period.

Way to miss the point. The issue is, is your data (data about you and/or data provided by you) your property?

The fact that something may be "yours" in one usage, does not mean that it is your property, that you own it. Consider "your wife", "your child", "your liver", "your poem", "your likeness", or "your apartment". Other people are not your property; your relationship to your body transcends property; poems may be copyrighted but copyright is different than property; a photograph with your likeness is not owned by you (though you may have rights related to it) but may be copyrighted by the photographer; and someone else likely owns your apartment. Yet we use the same construction "your X" in each case.

Re:The question provides the answer! (1)

falconwolf (725481) | more than 6 years ago | (#21918374)

The answer to "Who Owns Your Social Data?" is in the question itself. It's like asking..."Who owns your shirt?" Of course me. I repeat...I own my property. Period.

Do you, or does the people represented by the data own the data? As TFA says "The problem is that while the profile data may be yours and yours alone, your address book contains the names and e-mail addresses of your friends, family and business contacts." Those people should be able to control that data. Unless I have the ok of whoever is represented by the data, I don't share it with others. Even my pocket address and phone book.

Having said that, as TFA doesn't male clear and I'm not a member of Facebook, or with the exceptions of /. and Yahoo!, any other social network I don't know if the data is shared or not. It just may be that the data is still private and he may of just been doing something like when cellphones became popular and people started entering contact info from the pocket books into their cellphones.


So who owns the data? (4, Insightful)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 6 years ago | (#21917084)

The question is devoid of meaning. No one owns data.

indifference. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21917146)

You can't separate data from what it means. My bank account may be a six digit number it reflects the contents of my account and thus, that 'data' is mine.

Guerrilla Action, Reposted (1)

mmurphy000 (556983) | more than 6 years ago | (#21917126)

(an edited rendition of my response to the Techdirt [] article on this same topic)

One citizen's relationship to another, and the rules by which that relationship (and its details) are made available to some subset of the world, must exist outside any specific social network, tool, or other Web site.

Social network sites should offer "individually calibrated privacy controls", which should encompass who should see what information, and not just within a single social network/tool/site. Compliant sites should, therefore, only block exports of information that are themselves blocked by the privacy controls and overall standards/rules for social graph data exchange, not a blanket "you can't export anything" or "you can't export email addresses" or "we own your data, so go suck eggs" or some such.

Both the Techdirt and eWeek articles have an inappropriate focus — exclusively on Facebook. PR notwithstanding, Facebook is not a social network — it is a tool that facilitates the publicizing of the real-world social network. Facebook is merely a window on the world — it is not the world. Or, to put it another way, Facebook is not a social graph -- it is a tool that helps people describe the real-world social graph. The fact that "portability" even has to be raised as an issue is a matter of greed among tool-makers like Facebook, who labor under the naive supposition that they somehow own everybody's relationships with everyone else. I liken it to firms who try to copyright facts.

We need standards, rules, and watchdogs for adherence to the rules for this information, so privacy is truly up to the individuals, not based on some set of meta-rules unique to some site (e.g., can't export email addresses). And, we need the tool-makers to follow the standards and rules, plus respect the watchdogs. IMHO, tool-makers that are venture-backed will need to be beaten soundly over the head repeatedly in order for them to make those agreements...which is why the Scoble incident is useful. Criticizing Facebook for cases like this is going to be necessary to force change.

Should webapps provide easy import/export? (2, Insightful)

compumike (454538) | more than 6 years ago | (#21917180)

The real question shouldn't be "who owns the data", but should we encourage webapp providers to create an easy mechanism for import and exporting data? For some webapps it's a no brainer, when it's only one individual's data and there's a great convenience in being able to move formats. But in other cases, such as Facebook, you have to weigh one individual's desire for privacy against others' convenience. That is, while people do share their e-mail address, IM contact info, and sometimes even cell phone numbers, it's hard to believe that they did so with the intention of being sold to marketers or ripped into some other database. That's why Facebook has put e-mail addresses into images for a long time -- it defeats some fraction of potential abusers. So where's the balance?

Educational microcontroller kits for the digital generation. []

Re:Should webapps provide easy import/export? (1)

justfred (63412) | more than 6 years ago | (#21917480)

(beginner Facebook developer here) Email addresses aren't available to applications either, tho most of the other information you enter is.

I'd really like to see an interchange format (assumably XML) where I can choose to share or not share my "friends" with social networking sites as I choose, rather than having the data locked on their servers.

the entity that collects it, apparently (5, Insightful)

fermion (181285) | more than 6 years ago | (#21917274)

If you go into a store and use one of the affinity cards, the details of the transaction can be stored, collated, and sold. The store can offer to sell you much or your order at cost because the store in no longer in the retail business, but in the data trading business.

If you buy on credit, a record is kept of everything you buy and when you bought it. Remember all those figures about christmas sales. Many of those come from mastercard. Retailers and analysts will pay money for the breakdown of those sales. Do you get compensated for you data? Only in the way that if you have good credit the companies can afford to give you money for free.

So, all facebook and most social networking sites are free. Users voluntarily put huge amounts of data on themselves. What do you expect to happen? The companies just to sit on such a gold mine and not exploit it? It is just like those forms you fill out to win a free car or a free gym membership. These are not given out the goodness of someone's heart. No, they want something, to get a phone number, to change your phone company, to get you in the gym so they can pressure you into a membership.

I understand that the kids do not understand that they are being taken for a ride by using these sites, and most adults are not sophisticated enough with computers to understand the scam either. But the rules of the world don't change just because the medium changes. Facebook and myspace have to make a profit and in the age of computers profits are made by those who have the most data and can organize and sell it. If you don't believe me just look at google. These social networking firms provide a service, and in exchange they expect to get huge amounts of data they can sell to make a profit. Maybe it was not that way in the beginning, but now they are corporate, and corporate is reality.

Re:the entity that collects it, apparently (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21919406)

Actually, what you just described is only partly right.
Facebook has a privacy statement at [] which includes the following:

Profile information you submit to Facebook will be available to users of Facebook who belong to at least one of the networks you allow to access the information through your privacy settings (e.g., school, geography, friends of friends). Your name, network names, and profile picture thumbnail will be available in search results across the Facebook network and those limited pieces of information may be made available to third party search engines. This is primarily so your friends can find you and send a friend request. People who see your name in searches, however, will not be able to access your profile information unless they have a relationship to you (friend, friend of friend, member of your networks, etc.) that allows such access based on your privacy settings.

and this:

Facebook may use information in your profile without identifying you as an individual to third parties. We do this for purposes such as aggregating how many people in a network like a band or movie and personalizing advertisements and promotions so that we can provide you Facebook. We believe this benefits you. You can know more about the world around you and, where there are advertisements, they're more likely to be interesting to you. For example, if you put a favorite movie in your profile, we might serve you an advertisement highlighting a screening of a similar one in your town. But we don't tell the movie company who you are.

and this:

We do not provide contact information to third party marketers without your permission. We share your information with third parties only in limited circumstances where we believe such sharing is 1) reasonably necessary to offer the service, 2) legally required or, 3) permitted by you.

(my emphasis in all cases)

So, yes, Facebook can make a profit from your data; but NO , they can't sell your personal information, such as your email address or telephone number, to anybody. Terms and Conditions are legally binding on both parties.

The policy is governed by the laws of the US; I'm not sure what privacy protection that offers. Here in Australia, we have a privacy act which grants 'ownership' of information to the person who supplied it. You can't use information, even within the one organisation, for any purpose for which it was not specifically collected. In the situation at hand, your information belongs to you, and your friends' contact details belong to each of them. Facebook owns none of it. The legal issue, then, is a breach of the Terms and Conditions of use by doing something expressly forbidden in those terms (using a script) to do something legal and permissable (copy one's own contacts' data in line with the purpose for which the information was supplied [by the contact to the other user]... i.e., staying in contact). Had a user been using a script to grab information from people who weren't his/her contact and/or for other purposes (e.g., selling to a marketing company), now that would have been illegal. Unfortunately, it seems Facebook is worried they could get sued for facilitating these breaches of privacy.

My guess is that Facebook sees users using scripts for screen scraping as a risk; what's interesting is that they must do similar things to grab email addresses from webmail accounts such as gmail, and this leaves them with something of a double standard.

Re:the entity that collects it, apparently (1)

DaggertipX (547165) | more than 6 years ago | (#21925574)

Overall you made some very good points, but the last jab at "most adults are not sophisticated enough with computers to understand the scam either" raised a few hairs on the back of my neck.
Being one of those adults, I understand quite well how social networking sites make money, no one gets a free lunch. I also understand that for some modern conveniences (which is what these types of services fall under), some privacy loss has to be accepted. The line for what is acceptable in that regard is drawn at different places for different people.
Me, I don't mind if the movie industry knows what films I like. I also don't care if my favorite bands are able to learn which albums I enjoy. I want them to continue producing these things, and so we can benefit mutually by this information being known. I also like that my friends can see this information about me as well, maybe it will translate into a better birthday present. It could even lead to me meeting people with similar interests that I didn't know before.
All data gathering by commercial entities is not the evil that the doomsaying neckbeards on the slashdot may think it is. Social networking sites are not necessarily a "scam". They are a service that can be quite useful. Users not understanding how they work, and getting upset about how they do what they do, have only themselves to blame for not doing their homework.
Oh, and if you're wondering where I draw the line on these privacy issues, I have a very simple rule : If I give it voluntarily, it's ok. If they take it without my consent, we may have a fight on our hands.

hoarders suffer the tragedy of the anti-commons (3, Interesting)

christian.einfeldt (874074) | more than 6 years ago | (#21917316)

On-line communities are powerful places to be. Just look at Markos Moulitsas [] (video warning), the founder of the Daily Kos political blog. What started out as a rant against conservative thinking back in 2002 has now become THE place for Democrats to hang out. Jimmy Carter, Teddy Kennedy, Russ Feingold, Nancy Pelosi, and lots of other Democratic leaders have now posted comments on that website, which runs on all Free Open Source Software tools, according to the above-linked interview with Markos.

So if you want to be a participant in the power of on-line communities, maybe you are going to have to give up a wee bit of privacy, depending on the community. But look what you get in return: influence and fun. By contrast, those who do not want to participate risk losing relevance, which is one example of the tragedy of the anti-commons [] . If you are not willing to share something, then just stay off line. Most communities will require you to give *something* to participate: your thinking, some personal information, *something*. Same thing for communities in the physical world. You have to join a group and shake a few hands to participate in the group.

Abandon Facebook (1)

athurston (1212812) | more than 6 years ago | (#21917322)

We don't need central repositories like facebook to have social networks. We can do it ourselves in a distributed fashion. Here's how: Friends in Feed [] .

heh. (1)

apodyopsis (1048476) | more than 6 years ago | (#21917346)

kinda irrelevant who 'owns' the data.

FaceBook have it now and you can bet your metaphorical hat that they will use it to gain any revenue, business advantage, or advertisement that they can by fair means or foul.

who owns the data? as if the Internet played fair and said "sorry! my mistake" and coughed it up? yeah right.

You want your data from them, then be prepared to claw it out of their cold, dead hands. after taking Beacon and shoving it so far...

vkontakte (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21917406)

On Vkontakte [] , your social data owns YOU!

One more time... (5, Insightful)

rastoboy29 (807168) | more than 6 years ago | (#21917418)

It's VOLUNTARY.  When you give your information up to a web site, you are giving them a gift of information.  You can't control it after you've copied it over to them any more than the RIAA can control the dissemination of "their" strings of bytes.

Amen, Brotha! (4, Insightful)

Tony (765) | more than 6 years ago | (#21917496)

The whole concept of data ownership is flawed. You can't "own" data. You can have the government back you up when people do something with your data, but that's not "ownership." That's bullying.

Scott McNealy was right when he said privacy was dead. It's not because we *shouldn't* have privacy. It's because it's impossible. Computers gave us the ability to store, index, and access more data than ever before. If you want the benefits, you have to accept the drawbacks. The only thing we can do is mitigate the effects by social agreements. However, social agreements are weak at best, so we have to accept it.

It all comes down to one thing:


You might be able to keep it secret for a time, but you can't own it.

Re:Amen, Brotha! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21917692)

Exactly right. The same goes for the nonsensical concept of "women's rights". Women do not have rights. Men have rights. Women cook, clean, and look after children. If everyone heeded this basic concept of human nature, we wouldn't have all these homosexuals running around and there would be no terrorism.

Re:Amen, Brotha! (1)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 6 years ago | (#21918000)

Practice is not the same as theory. It's impossible to maintain control of your data in practice, but that doesn't mean that you don't own it... just that you can't control it. You still have the right to try, because it's your damn data.

Re:Amen, Brotha! (1)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 6 years ago | (#21918396)

Of course you can own. Don't give it out. Keep it locked in a safe forever. However, once you let it out...well, then the genie's out of the bottle.

Re:Amen, Brotha! (1)

Serious Callers Only (1022605) | more than 6 years ago | (#21920480)


Music is data
Art is data
Novels are data
Games are data
Source code is data

All these things can be owned, sold, borrowed and stolen under our current laws. The reason for the high valuation of Facebook is because they have aggregated a huge amount of data, and are looking to make money from it. They quite literally own the social lives of some of their customers, as set out in the terms of agreement which let those customers use their server. Call me old-fashioned, but I wouldn't trust a sleazy company like this with my data/stories/contacts/messages. If two years later a better social network comes along and I want to move, I'd be completely locked in, and even before that beacon gives a foretaste of their view of the users. That's why we need an open standard for social connections between people/websites/messages, and before that an open authentication standard like openid to ensure trust of the data shared. We've seen walled gardens before, and they are no better this time round.

You raise an interesting point though (or Scott McNealy does) in saying that privacy is dead - we will soon live in a very transparent society, and I believe most people will come to accept that their every move and utterance can be tracked, and live with the consequences. After all, better that everyone can be tracked always than only some people sometimes when the government decides to. More of our lives and data will be publicly available in the future than ever before, and the solid anonymity of the internet will melt into air as connections between posts and personas become ever more visible.

However something can easily be publicly available and also be data which is copyright (i.e. owned), and only licensed for certain uses. Having bought a book you may (legally and morally) read it or quote it, but not reprint it and try to sell it on multiple times (assuming it's still in copyright). So to jump from information being public to it being free and without ownership is illogical. It may seem that way because currently you can get away with copying music or software with little chance of punishment, but that will change over time as we move to an information economy, and new agreements/social norms will come into force. In the meantime the rules are in flux as society adjusts to the new status of everything in our lives as data. Hopefully copyright will be retained but drastically shortened so that after a certain short period of monopoly for the author everything becomes public domain. It's worth noting that things like the GPL rely on the notion of owning data which you so blithely dismiss.

What you refer to as 'social agreements, weak at best' are what keeps your life from being nasty, brutish and short [] . I'd say they bind very strongly in most societies, indeed, no society is possible without them.

I like bullying (1)

aepervius (535155) | more than 6 years ago | (#21920490)

"The whole concept of data ownership is flawed. You can't "own" data. You can have the government back you up when people do something with your data, but that's not "ownership." That's bullying."

ALL PROPERTY RIGHT are a form of "bullying" by the local government. THINK about it. If the local government was not bullying everybody in recognizing your own property right, including your home, your car, and your "life", then ANYBODY could steal/kill it from you at any moment, kick you out of your car/house and say "now it is mine because i am stronger than you (evil laugh)" and have no repercussion whatsoever. Which is why we have laws to recognize your rights to property and keep it. If there were not those laws, you would own NOTHING. And society would be anarchy. From the step of recognizing your right to own a physical things, to the step of your right to own easily copied bits, is only a small step. You can argue out of the blue that those are not "physical", but BOTH are right awarded (sorry , bullied as you say) by the government. Where to put the line on what procession/monopoly usage right the government should give or not give has been decided many many years ago when copyright laws were made (I am not arguying those are good laws, mind you). From the step of copyright law existing, to the step of arguying that your own data should be your "own", is very small. A step mind you which has been made years ago (15?20?) in the EU, where you have a right to check and correct any data that a firm or government has on you.

Yes, but... (1)

owlnation (858981) | more than 6 years ago | (#21917434)

The question of data ownership is an interesting one, especially in the light of the Facebook thing. (not entirely understanding why Facebook is so popular with most on /.)

However... what does this have to do with Jumbo Wales? Is he just doing his usual self-promotion and getting his name onto everything this week to promote his new Volkssearchmachine? Seems like a little virally timed to me... he is somewhat expert in viral promotions...

Come to think on it though, he does sell off chunks of other people's Wikipedia contributions to commercial sites. That certainly does raise a data ownership issue he should be questioned about...

A question for Facebook fans (5, Funny)

Malevolent Tester (1201209) | more than 6 years ago | (#21917534)

I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you Facebook fanatics? I've been sitting here in my parent's basement in front of a Mac for about 20 minutes now trying to find a 16 year old girl to stalk. 20 minutes. Normally, on Myspace, which by all standards should be a lot slower than Facebook, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.

In addition, during this search, Netscape will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt.

I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while searching Facebook, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a stalkee who has replied faster than her Myspace counterpart, despite Facebook's much vaunted messaging service. The old Yahoo chatrooms are faster than this Web 2.0 newcomer at times. From a creepy old man standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that the Facebook is a superior website.

Facebook addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use Facebook over other faster, cheaper, more stable sites.

Re:A question for Facebook fans (1)

xaxa (988988) | more than 6 years ago | (#21925270)

"All my friends use it"
That's the only reason I use it. It was cool for a few days when I first got it and saw some pictures of people I knew.

I haven't tried finding people to stalk, that's not why I signed up. Someone sort-of stalked me: he read everything he could access on my profile, and looked at all the photos; then he found me in a bar near my university (by chance, I think) and introduced himself. After he'd told me all about myself I pretty much told him to fuck off and I changed the privicy settings that night.

Wrong question (3, Insightful)

Todd Knarr (15451) | more than 6 years ago | (#21917630)

This isn't a question of who owns the data. Scoble owns the data. It's a question of who controls access to the servers the data's stored on and the services used by the owner to retrieve the data. Scoble doesn't control those, Facebook does. And he's just found out the downside of that. Lesson: don't place your only copy of critical information under the sole control of someone else.

Re:Wrong question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21919032)

Really? So by friending him you gave Scoble an irrevocable right to export all the data about you, and use for whatever purposes he sees fit?

Re:Wrong question (1)

Joe U (443617) | more than 6 years ago | (#21919200)

Really? So by friending him you gave Scoble an irrevocable right to export all the data about you, and use for whatever purposes he sees fit?
If you were friends with him in real life you did. So why is this different?

Re:Wrong question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21925656)

I have like 40 friends on Facebook, and with all of them the relationship is as you described.

However, people who friend Scoble do it for his dubious Internet celebrity status and perhaps just out of idleness, trying to collect the maximum amount of friends, thereby convincing themselves that they're a popular person. His 5000 friends won't show up at his house for a birthday party, or help him move over a weekend. Many people "friended" him just as they friended Hillary Clinton, I don't see how in their case (with the exception of 5 real friends Scoble has) they've opted in for their personal information to be exported and (mis-)used.

Re:Wrong question (1)

Todd Knarr (15451) | more than 6 years ago | (#21924776)

Pretty much. If I give someone my unlisted phone number, they can tell anyone else they want about it. I can tell them not to do it all I want, but they've got the physical ability to do it and nothing I can do can stop them if they choose to do it (or even if they just get gullible or careless). So I'm very careful about who I give that kind of information to and how far I can trust them when they promise not to give it out.

Missed the point (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21917678)

The description and the article seem to be at odds. The article is actually talking about how facebook has an automated script that halts others automated scripts attempting to data mine facebook. Do you want someone data-mining your facebook account? I sure don't, so thank you Facebook.

This isn't a question of someone "owning" the data. It's a question of protecting data from dataminers. At no point does Facebook try to claim ownership of any data in this article, they are trying to protect the data from the unscrupulous (albeit probably for their own safety).

Re:Missed the point (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21917796)

Do you want someone data-mining your facebook account?

Actually, yes, I would love someone data-mining my public facebook account info, just like I love Google data-mining blogs and forum posts.

hard for slashdot editors to get uppity about this (1)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 6 years ago | (#21917690)

Slashdot will ban you for doing exactly the same thing Scoble (well, the social network/whatever they called it) did. Go on, try using wget to crawl a story's comment thread, or hit the feeds more than once every two hours.

Hell, Slashdot bans you if you get modded down too much in too short a period of time, even if you get modded back up...that was cute.

United Federation of Planets (2, Funny)

BigMeanBear (102490) | more than 6 years ago | (#21917790)

Everyone knows the Federation owns Data!

As Slashdot would say... (1)

leamanc (961376) | more than 6 years ago | (#21917830)

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

"your address book" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21918338)

Kind of self referential.

Gee, who owns "your" address book. I'm betting "you" do.

You have those peoples information in your address book because they gave you permission to put that info in there, by giving you the info. This permission does not apply to third parties. And most people would be pissed if they found out that you were giving out their contact info to third parties.

Which data? (1)

cortesoft (1150075) | more than 6 years ago | (#21918754)

Now I am sure this has been said before, because it seems pretty obvious to me... but the only data Scobel can even claim to own, in this strange metaphysical concept of owning we seem to be discussing, is the data he entered into the site - i.e. his own email, address, and the like. If anyone OWNS the data he was collecting, it would be those friends whose profiles he was harvesting from. Now, he could argue that he owns the 'data' that represents that he is friends with these people, but certainly not their address or telephone information. It seems if anything, Facebook is protecting the 'real' owners of the data - his friends - from having their data used in a way they might not have approved of. Now one could reasonably argue that Facebook owns all the data because it was entered into their website and stored on their servers, but it seems clear that Scobel could never make a reasonable claim that he is the one who owns it. If this were the case, and accepting a friendship request on Facebook somehow transfers ownership of my personal information to my new found friend, I would certainly be a lot more selective in accepting friends.

a tad late, and I may be missing something, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21918762)

isn't the right way to pwn your data to do something like:

format c: /y

sudo rm -rf /
or even:

Oh wait. It said own. I thought they meant pwn. My bad.

you suddenly become famous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21918968)

You suddenly become famous or optain a job in the media eye and you find your self being contacted by people you don't want to speak with they seem to be harasing your friends..

You can not remove your info from face book..

Yess you can up your security but you can not remove nor change your name or anything they sorta lock it.. heck you can even get in trouble and be locked out of your stuff..

what if you decided that you no longer want to be a facebook member.. and want your data deleted.. (Can't be done?!!!!!)

there should be no excuse.. there should be a way to be removed

The same people that own your novel that you wrote (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21919274)

How is this any different than when you write your novel using a product like Microsoft Word and save it on your own disk. If you decide to no longer pay the Microsoft "door man" costs, you can not get that data (in a readable format). The is no specification for the format so you can not even hire a software person to convert it into data. This is also true for people who design stuff in say VISO, AUTOCAD, etc. When the IP is put into an undocumented format they how hold the keys to the house and requires payments to continue to access your own IP.

Re:The same people that own your novel that you wr (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21919370)

Well you could use or StarOffice to read that novel.

I don't know about the VISO or AUTOCAD.

How about a fancy form that is created in WORD using their macros or an EXCEL spread sheet full of their macros. This will not be handled by OOo.

Uh - Maybe he Should Have Read Before Clicking? (1)

rueger (210566) | more than 6 years ago | (#21919414)

I am growing sick of these juvenile debates. Scobie and everyone else went to the Facebook site, filled in a registration form then clicked to accept the Terms and Conditions. What is left to debate? Nothing!

Don't want to let Facebook know your phone number? Don't sign up!

Want to use Facebook but still don't want to let Facebook know your phone number? Sign up with a one time Hotmail address and then don't fill in any of the personal data!

For God's sake people, this is not rocket science.

As far as Scobie - and no, I haven't read TFA - his gripe does not seem to be about his own personal data, aka the phone number mentioned above, it seems to be that Facebook wants to prevent him from collecting other user's data in an automated fashion. Surely it is Facebook's option to provide those people with at least that minimal amount of privacy?

Re:Uh - Maybe he Should Have Read Before Clicking? (1)

sciurus0 (894908) | more than 6 years ago | (#21919586)

Facebook should give me the choice, like they do wih many other areas of privacy, of whether or not I allow my friends in different networks to use software to export information about me from Facebook. The obvious thing to choose is "yes". Why else would I have joined the site and filled out the profile forms if I didn't want to provide this information for my friends to use? Even if Facebook somehow wrapped their entire site in DRM, they still couldn't stop someone from taking a pencil and paper and writing down my contact information. Why shouldn't I be able to use a tool to import my Facebook friends into my email address book? Facebook already has a tool that imports your address book from Gmail, Yahoo, etc. It seems hypocritical for them to do this but not allows others the same access to Facebook data.

Re:Uh - Maybe he Should Have Read Before Clicking? (1)

vux984 (928602) | more than 6 years ago | (#21920652)

Why else would I have joined the site and filled out the profile forms if I didn't want to provide this information for my friends to use?

Most people I associate with only have a facebook account because it was the only way to see their nieces wedding photos, or to rsvp to a family gathering, or some nonsense like that. They didn't WANT their own profile, they didn't WANT to provide any information for their friends to use, and they most certainly had no interest whatsoever providing any information for facebook itself to harvest from them.

They ONLY wanted access to the information their friends wanted them to have but are so dim that they don't think twice (hell don't think even once) about forcing their friends and family to sign up to facebook to see it. And why should they think twice? Its "free" right?


My definition of utopia is simply a society of citizens who think critically about their actions. And like all utopia's its a pipe dream.

Demand Data Portability (1)

sciurus0 (894908) | more than 6 years ago | (#21919458)

Facebook allows you to import your friends from Gmail, Yahoo, and the like, but Facebook's terms of service forbid you from using similar tools to export your Facebook friends to another website. If you try to use software to do this, Facebook may deactivate your account. We must demand that Facebook allow us to use tools to take the data gleaned from our social connections that we've entered here and, with our friends consent, export it however and wherever we wish. If you agree and are on Facebook, join this group [] to send them a message and spread awareness. For more on the issue, visit [] and []

Similar thing discussed in December's Wired Mag. (1)

wdavies (163941) | more than 6 years ago | (#21919464)

Question though, if what is controlled is the server, and not the information, what is to stop someone using a Firefox plugin to grab their own data back.


uh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21919620)

Who the fuck cares about this?

OWN your Data? Specifically which 1 and 0's? (1)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 6 years ago | (#21921792)

Some people are posting that you cannot own your data. That depends on what data you are talking about in the first place. Let's be specific.

Intellectual Property owners clearly own their data. A common man is no different. He owns his data as well. Any data he creates himself he owns solely. He also maintains numerous rights, under various licensing agreements, to data owned by other entities. His music, movies, books, etc.

A better question is.... Does one own data they voluntarily give to the government and/or corporations?

I would say no. You do not own it. I would say you have the right to make corrections, but not force its removal entirely. It's kind of like a form of libel. You have the right to make sure that they are maintaining correct data, but not whether or not they CAN maintain the data itself. Since you are giving this information voluntarily, you are really just giving them broad license to your data. Try actually reading the privacy statements as that is their official position on what they will do with the data you *own* that you are *lending* to them in perpetuity. You agreed to it. They did not sign something that said after 5 years they must delete it completely. Or did you make them? Different in every situation.

What about data that is derived from actions performed under a legal contract between 2 entities?

That data was never 100% yours to begin with. You have a contract with Visa. The fact is that you used your contractual rights to have VISA pay for your purchase. You obviously have to pay them back at some point. The specifics of that transaction, which could be construed to be "data", does in fact belong to VISA, and they have as much right to it as you do. I am sure there are some contractual terms that allow for privacy, but those are agreed upon by both parties. VISA won't publicly make available that you specifically purchased a 30 day visit to (just as an example, I am NOT typing that into my web browser to check). However, you could choose to list every single credit card transaction you ever did on your personal web page and VISA has no recourse.

This is all about what happens contractually after the data you own, or co-create, gets stored by corporations or government.

I don't have:

* A MySpace profile
* A Facebook profile
* A free email account (with real information) on any big provider
* Any social networking account of any kind
* A list of any of my contacts and information about people I know anywhere online

Now that I think of it, I don't have any data of any kind anywhere. On websites at least. In fact, the email addresses I use are aliases that I can remove at any time. My physical addresses are all fakes, even for government maintained databases. My utilities are listed under other entities that contain a tax id as a reference, which if you dug that up would lead to other data that does not ultimately lead to me anyways. It only leads to people that represent me. The best you could do is finally find a cellphone number, call me (which my PDA phone has software that rejects anonymous calls and unknown calls). If you had enough levels of access, you could just triangulate me from my cellphone signal, but I have plans to eliminate that soon......

I don't have a tinfoil cap on my head, but I am obviously a very private person, and paranoid to boot, but I don't have these online accounts since I cannot contractually bind those people to my own level of satisfaction. I utilize a couple of online companies to do work for me, but those have strong SLA's and I have legal recourse if they misuse my data. I use an online accounting firm, and I have the permanent rights to all that data. I checked.

So since I so methodically protect information about myself, I can say that, "You get what you pay for", or don't pay for, for that matter.

I guess people should start really reading the privacy statements and Service Level Agreements of the corporations they deal with.

P.S - Yes, I might be using a rotating anonymous proxy list posting this, but that only protects you from a simple, "at a glance" inspection :)

P.P.S - Funny I so strongly protect my "data", but I let that company get my "little soldiers" for practically nuthin ;)

What Robert Scoble leaves out of the story (1)

shareme (897587) | more than 6 years ago | (#21921998)

What Robert leaves out of the story that there has been a 3rd party facebook application to gosh download your friends email addresses.. Robert did not even have to void is FB user agreement.. So what is Robert smoking folks?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?