Following the debacle surrounding the Facebook terms of service, the president of Epic (Electronic Privacy Information Centre), Marc Rotenberg feels that more law is in order.
The row over Facebook’s change in its terms of service governing users personal data highlights the need for a privacy law, claims a leading watchdog.
The Electronic Privacy Information Centre was on the brink of filing a legal complaint when Facebook announced it would revert to its old policy.
The new terms seemingly gave Facebook vast control over users’ content.
“This row underlines the need for comprehensive privacy laws,” said Epic’s president Marc Rotenberg.
Really? Okay, I am not impressed by companies that abuse their relationship with their customers – and Facebook should have learned by now; after all, this is not the first time something like this has happened. And, when it comes to sharing private data, it is up to the individual to be careful and share only that which they are happy to see in the public domain. But do we really need law to cover this?
“It is great that Facebook has responded by going back to its old terms of service. That is a step in the right direction, but these issues don’t go away.”
“It’s going to be an ongoing concern for users until we get privacy laws in place,” Mr Rotenberg told the BBC.
So, Facebook cocked up and the users complained en masse, causing an about turn. In which case, no law was necessary, was it? Yes, it may be an ongoing concern – and it is up to the individual to be careful and to do a Facebook should a repeat occur. Companies concerned about continued profitability tend to respond to negative feedback if it is sufficient in volume and threatens their good name and damage to their business.
As an aside, it is the casual nature with which such social networking sites treat privacy that keeps me well away from them (remember the previous Facebook confuffle whereby they were sharing information without informed consent?). I do not have an account on any of them; Facebook, Myspace, LinkedIn et al and prefer to keep it that way. I was invited the other day by an erstwhile colleague to join him at LinkedIn. I gave the matter some thought, but eventually politely declined. He’s relaxed about it, and we will remain in contact in the old fashioned way that we always have. Joining a social networking service just isn’t me – privacy is one concern, the fact that I have no use for it is another.
For those of you who do join, read the small print and if it changes adversely, complain loudly. You really, really don’t need any laws to do this. And if you think you do, just remember the law of unexpected consequences.
“For those of you who do join, read the small print”
Ah, there’s the rub, ‘caveat emptor’, as my old law teacher drummed into us. Most often when people start foaming at the mouth about perceived injustice by online service providers it turns out that they haven’t, in fact, read even the large print.
My favourite example of this is people whose broadband doesn’t live up to their expectations in some way who then rant on about how they should get what they are paying for. in fact they are, they just don’t actually know what it is they’re paying for because they never read the service contract.
Good old English common law, however, makes the generous assumption that you are smart enough not to enter into any contract that you have not read and understood.