Privacy groups want FTC to oppose Facebook's policy changes

IDG News Service - Six privacy groups have asked the U.S. Federal Trade Commission to strike down proposed changes to Facebook's policies, as they violate a 2011 settlement with the agency over user privacy.

"The changes will allow Facebook to routinely use the images and names of Facebook users for commercial advertising without consent," the groups wrote in a letter Wednesday to the FTC. The groups asked the commission to enforce its 2011 order.

Facebook announced in August proposed updates to its Data Use Policy and Statement of Rights and Responsibilities, two key documents that explain how the social network collects and uses people's data.

In the revised Statement, Facebook states that by joining the site, users "permit a business or other entity to pay us to display your name and/or profile picture with your content or information, without any compensation to you." In the original Statement, people can use their privacy settings "to limit how your name and profile picture may be associated with commercial, sponsored, or related content (such as a brand you like) served or enhanced by us," the groups said.

The changes proposed by Facebook follow the approval by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco division of a US$20 million fund for Facebook to settle a class-action lawsuit against the site's "sponsored stories" advertising program. The complainants, some acting on behalf of minors, had alleged that their names and likeness had been used without their prior consent in "sponsored stories" advertisements shown to their online friends on the social networking website.(

"The pending changes arise from a class action settlement in which the attorneys who purported to represent the interests of Facebook users granted the company a right that was contrary to the company's policy at the time the litigation was initiated," wrote the groups, which include the Electronic Privacy Information Center, Center for Digital Democracy, Consumer Watchdog, Patient Privacy Rights, U.S. PIRG, and the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse.

As a result, Facebook users who "reasonably believed" that their images and content would not be used for commercial purposes without their consent could find their pictures showing up on the pages of their friends, endorsing the products of Facebook's advertisers, the groups wrote. "Remarkably, their images could even be used by Facebook to endorse products that the user does not like or even use," they added.

The groups also object to what they consider a "deemed consent" that Facebook requires from minors. Under the proposed changes, minors have only to represent that at least one of their parents or legal guardians has also agreed to the terms of the section, and the use of their name, profile picture, content, and information, on their behalf. Such deemed consent "eviscerates any meaningful limits over the commercial exploitation of the images and names of young Facebook users," the groups wrote.

Facebook said the proposed update did not change its ad practices or policies, but only made things clearer to people who use the service. "As part of this proposed update, we revised our explanation of how things like your name, profile picture and content may be used in connection with ads or commercial content to make it clear that you are granting Facebook permission for this use when you use our services," wrote a Facebook spokeswoman in an email.

John Ribeiro covers outsourcing and general technology breaking news from India for The IDG News Service. Follow John on Twitter at @Johnribeiro. John's e-mail address is john_ribeiro@idg.com

Reprinted with permission from IDG.net. Story copyright 2012 International Data Group. All rights reserved.

View the original article here

Privacy groups want FTC to oppose Facebook's policy changes

IDG News Service - Six privacy groups have asked the U.S. Federal Trade Commission to strike down proposed changes to Facebook's policies, as they violate a 2011 settlement with the agency over user privacy.

"The changes will allow Facebook to routinely use the images and names of Facebook users for commercial advertising without consent," the groups wrote in a letter Wednesday to the FTC. The groups asked the commission to enforce its 2011 order.

Facebook announced in August proposed updates to its Data Use Policy and Statement of Rights and Responsibilities, two key documents that explain how the social network collects and uses people's data.

In the revised Statement, Facebook states that by joining the site, users "permit a business or other entity to pay us to display your name and/or profile picture with your content or information, without any compensation to you." In the original Statement, people can use their privacy settings "to limit how your name and profile picture may be associated with commercial, sponsored, or related content (such as a brand you like) served or enhanced by us," the groups said.

The changes proposed by Facebook follow the approval by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco division of a US$20 million fund for Facebook to settle a class-action lawsuit against the site's "sponsored stories" advertising program. The complainants, some acting on behalf of minors, had alleged that their names and likeness had been used without their prior consent in "sponsored stories" advertisements shown to their online friends on the social networking website.(

"The pending changes arise from a class action settlement in which the attorneys who purported to represent the interests of Facebook users granted the company a right that was contrary to the company's policy at the time the litigation was initiated," wrote the groups, which include the Electronic Privacy Information Center, Center for Digital Democracy, Consumer Watchdog, Patient Privacy Rights, U.S. PIRG, and the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse.

As a result, Facebook users who "reasonably believed" that their images and content would not be used for commercial purposes without their consent could find their pictures showing up on the pages of their friends, endorsing the products of Facebook's advertisers, the groups wrote. "Remarkably, their images could even be used by Facebook to endorse products that the user does not like or even use," they added.

The groups also object to what they consider a "deemed consent" that Facebook requires from minors. Under the proposed changes, minors have only to represent that at least one of their parents or legal guardians has also agreed to the terms of the section, and the use of their name, profile picture, content, and information, on their behalf. Such deemed consent "eviscerates any meaningful limits over the commercial exploitation of the images and names of young Facebook users," the groups wrote.

Facebook said the proposed update did not change its ad practices or policies, but only made things clearer to people who use the service. "As part of this proposed update, we revised our explanation of how things like your name, profile picture and content may be used in connection with ads or commercial content to make it clear that you are granting Facebook permission for this use when you use our services," wrote a Facebook spokeswoman in an email.

John Ribeiro covers outsourcing and general technology breaking news from India for The IDG News Service. Follow John on Twitter at @Johnribeiro. John's e-mail address is john_ribeiro@idg.com

Reprinted with permission from IDG.net. Story copyright 2012 International Data Group. All rights reserved.

View the original article here

Privacy groups ask FTC to oppose Facebook's policy changes

Six privacy groups have asked the U.S. Federal Trade Commission to strike down proposed changes to Facebook's policies, as they violate a 2011 settlement with the agency over user privacy.

"The changes will allow Facebook to routinely use the images and names of Facebook users for commercial advertising without consent," the groups wrote in a letter Wednesday to the FTC. The groups asked the commission to enforce its 2011 order.

Facebook announced in August proposed updates to its Data Use Policy and Statement of Rights and Responsibilities, two key documents that explain how the social network collects and uses people's data.

In the revised Statement, Facebook states that by joining the site, users "permit a business or other entity to pay us to display your name and/or profile picture with your content or information, without any compensation to you." In the original Statement, people can use their privacy settings "to limit how your name and profile picture may be associated with commercial, sponsored, or related content (such as a brand you like) served or enhanced by us," the groups said.

The changes proposed by Facebook follow the approval by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco division of a US$20 million fund for Facebook to settle a class-action lawsuit against the site's "sponsored stories" advertising program. The complainants, some acting on behalf of minors, had alleged that their names and likeness had been used without their prior consent in "sponsored stories" advertisements shown to their online friends on the social networking website.(

"The pending changes arise from a class action settlement in which the attorneys who purported to represent the interests of Facebook users granted the company a right that was contrary to the company's policy at the time the litigation was initiated," wrote the groups, which include the Electronic Privacy Information Center, Center for Digital Democracy, Consumer Watchdog, Patient Privacy Rights, U.S. PIRG, and the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse.

As a result, Facebook users who "reasonably believed" that their images and content would not be used for commercial purposes without their consent could find their pictures showing up on the pages of their friends, endorsing the products of Facebook's advertisers, the groups wrote. "Remarkably, their images could even be used by Facebook to endorse products that the user does not like or even use," they added.

The groups also object to what they consider a "deemed consent" that Facebook requires from minors. Under the proposed changes, minors have only to represent that at least one of their parents or legal guardians has also agreed to the terms of the section, and the use of their name, profile picture, content, and information, on their behalf. Such deemed consent "eviscerates any meaningful limits over the commercial exploitation of the images and names of young Facebook users," the groups wrote.

Facebook said the proposed update did not change its ad practices or policies, but only made things clearer to people who use the service. "As part of this proposed update, we revised our explanation of how things like your name, profile picture and content may be used in connection with ads or commercial content to make it clear that you are granting Facebook permission for this use when you use our services," wrote a Facebook spokeswoman in an email.

John Ribeiro covers outsourcing and general technology breaking news from India for The IDG News Service. Follow John on Twitter at @Johnribeiro. John's e-mail address is john_ribeiro@idg.com

John Ribeiro covers outsourcing and general technology breaking news from India for The IDG News Service.
More by John Ribeiro, IDG News Service

View the original article here

NTIA's mobile privacy push has failed, groups say

IDG News Service - Lobbyists derailed an effort by the Obama administration to create mobile privacy standards, a privacy group charged Thursday, while some participants in the process conceded it lacked focus.

The U.S. National Telecommunications and Information Administration's year-long multistakeholder process on mobile privacy, culminating in July in a proposed code of conduct for mobile app developers, also failed to fully examine mobile data collection efforts and marketing techniques, the Center for Digital Democracy said in a report released Thursday.

"While the [Obama] administration had an opportunity to advance the privacy and consumer protection interests of the American public, it failed to engage in the serious scrutiny and leadership these issues require," Jeffrey Chester, CDD's executive director, wrote in the report. "Missing almost entirely from the more than yearlong discussion was the impact that current digital marketing, mobile, and app-related business models have on the capability of a consumer to make meaningful privacy choices."

The NTIA's decision to separate out mobile privacy for discussion ignored significant cross-platform tracking of consumers, Chester said. The privacy discussions were "dominated by industry lobbyists," leading to weak consumer safeguards, he wrote. Other privacy advocates agreed, saying they were under-represented during the discussions.

The NTIA's process was "really horrible," added Susan Grant, director of consumer protection at the Consumer Federation of America. Grant called on the Obama administration to push for a baseline consumer privacy law during an NTIA meeting Thursday afternoon to discuss lessons learned in the first round of discussions. After a baseline privacy law, multistakeholder discussions could fill in some gaps, Grant said.

The NTIA's process also lacked focus and an agenda and needed more expert testimony about mobile privacy practices, other participants in the discussions said Thursday's meeting at the NTIA. The NTIA has additional privacy discussions planned. The data collection practices discussed during the NTIA meetings often didn't echo real-life practices, said Morgan Reed, executive director at the Association for Competitive Technology, a trade group representing app developers.

Other participants criticized the process for allowing contentious attacks during the discussions.

Some participants defended the NTIA and the process, however. Critics wanting more progress should realize that major change happens "incrementally" in Washington, D.C., said Stuart Ingis, counsel to the Digital Advertising Alliance, a self-regulatory advertising group.

Even though the process was flawed, the group has produced the mobile code of conduct that's now being tested, said Michelle De Mooy, senior associate for national priorities with Consumer Action. With no real deadline in the NTIA process, industry participants had little incentive to move forward with any initiatives, but the group eventually approved the code of conduct, she said.

Reprinted with permission from IDG.net. Story copyright 2012 International Data Group. All rights reserved.

View the original article here

Beware spammers thriving in Facebook Groups

A couple of weeks ago I was flicking through Facebook on my iPad when I noticed this buffoon in my News Feed.

Suspicious news feed post.

Though the buffoon's post tells people to not leave comments, I posted one anyway. I cannot repeat what I said here; suffice it to say I got my point across.

There were in fact multiple postings from the buffoon in my feed that day – something I hadn't seen before. How in Zuckerberg's name did they get here? It has to do with how Facebook has designed its Groups feature. The short version: Because Facebook allows any friend to add you to any Group, it leaves the door wide open to spammers and says "come on in!"

Here's the longer version.

Apparently, at some point in the last month or so I got added to a Group called "Share Your Topics." If you visit that Group – and I don't recommend it – you will find all sorts of similar come-ons from slime merchants like the buffoon above. I was also added to another Group called Technology News where the buffoon also posts.

You can only be added to a Group by a member who is also on your friends list. But once you're there, you get to see posts from people who are most definitely not your friends – including buffoons like that one.

That's because, in its infinite wisdom, Facebook decided that if someone else wants to add you to an "open" Group on Facebook, you're in. And by "infinite wisdom" I really mean "blatant desire to grow its Groups feature as quickly as possible and clean up the mess later (maybe) if enough people complain."

After you're added to a Group, Facebook notifies you, which presumably gives you the option to subtract yourself. But if you miss that brief notification, you're subject to any spammy post anyone in that Group deigns to share until you leave.

These notifications are also supposed to show up in your Activity Timeline, along with the name of the soon-to-ex-friend who added you. But in my tests about half of these Group notifications did not show up – only God and Sheryl Sandberg know why. Neither Share Your Topics nor Technology News are listed in my Activity Log, so I don't know when I was added or who did it (though I have my suspicions).

As I've noted in the past, Facebook's tools for reporting abusers are notoriously frustrating. You can report a Group or a person for posting "inappropriate content." You can block the person, which doesn't stop the spamming but does keep you from seeing it. Or you can send them a polite (in my case impolite) note asking them to please stop what they are doing.

Alert the transgressor.

Good luck with that last one. I reported this guy and the Share Your Topics Group weeks ago. Nothing has changed.

Meanwhile, I've noticed that open Groups I voluntarily chose to join are now changing their privacy settings from open to closed. I asked one of the administrators why. His answer was simple: Spammers had invaded it.

If you're the administrator of a Facebook Group and you haven't locked it down yet, now would be a good time to do that. It's pretty easy. Go to the Group page, click the settings button in the upper right (the gear icon), and select Edit Group Settings from the drop down menu. From there you can pick exactly how open or closed you want the Group to be, and how much admin control you want over who can join and what they can say.

Administrators can lock down a Facebook Group.

A better solution would be for Facebook to change its Groups policies to make them opt in, not opt out, so people can't simply add you to whatever Group they feel like until you leave. Facebook should also make it much easier to report abusers, as Twitter has done. But I don't think Facebook has any interest in solving this problem. In the meantime, we'll remain at the mercy of buffoons like this guy.

Follow TechHive on Tumblr today.

View the original article here

Groups oppose proposed change to Internet content 'safe harbor'

A proposed change to U.S. law that would allow state attorneys general to hold websites liable for content posted by users is a “dangerous path,” a group of tech trade groups and legal scholars said Wednesday.

A proposal by a group of state attorneys general to modify the so-called safe harbor provision in section 230 of the Communications Decency Act “would jeopardize the continued growth of the entire Internet industry and the free expression rights of Internet users everywhere,” the groups said in a letter to top U.S. lawmakers.

Section 230 of the law broadly protects Internet publishers and service providers from responsibility for user-generated content on their sites. But in June, a group of state attorneys general proposed a change to the law that would allow prosecution of publishers in cases where user-posted content violates state law.

Federal prosecutors now can hold web publishers liable in cases involving federal criminal law, intellectual property law, and electronic communications privacy law, and the state attorneys general want the same authority.

But those signing Wednesday’s letter—including the Center for Democracy and Technology, NetChoice, Public Knowledge and the Internet Association—said the proposed change is a bad idea. Twenty-three trade groups and other organizations signed the letter, along with 19 legal scholars.

The attorneys general proposal “would replace the certainty that Section 230 provides with open-ended legal risk,” the letter said. “By hosting third-party content, online service providers would expose themselves to potential prosecution under literally thousands of criminal statutes on a state-by-state basis. Keeping up with the thicket of state criminal laws would be a significant burden, especially for start-ups and smaller companies, and the risk of liability would create a strong incentive for companies to minimize or avoid interactive features and user-generated content.”

Supporters of the proposal have argued that section 230 discourages websites from policing their content, including, at some sites, ads for underage prostitution. Large Internet companies no longer need the protections, supporters have argued.

Attorney General Marty Jackley of South Dakota argued in June that in section 230, “you’ve essentially given these guys immunity” when state criminal laws are broken.

Grant Gross covers technology and telecom policy in the U.S. government for The IDG News Service.
More by Grant Gross, IDG News Service

View the original article here