NEW YORK - Tens of thousands of Facebook users are protesting new policies that they say grant the social-networking site the ability to control their information forever, even after they cancel their accounts.
Facebook’s new terms of use, updated Feb. 4, largely went unnoticed until the popular consumer rights advocacy blog Consumerist.com pointed out the changes Sunday.
When someone shares a photo, a message or a status update telling friends what they are up to at the moment, they first need to grant Facebook a license so the site can pass that information along to authorized friends, Zuckerberg said. Without the license, he said, Facebook wouldn’t be able to help people share information.
Zuckerberg, the founder of facebook, said the new terms are necessary to reflect the fact that friends may retain a copy of that message or other information once a user shares it with them.
“Even if the person deactivates their account, their friend still has a copy of that message,” Zuckerberg said. “We think this is the right way for Facebook to work, and it is consistent with how other services like e-mail work. One of the reasons we updated our terms was to make this more clear.”
So is it worth protesting? does it really infringe on privacy rights? I guess the only thing I wouldn’t want Facebook to ‘own’ or ‘retain’ indefinitely are my private photographs, otherwise not much personal info up there. The only thing that bothers me is that this policy change wasn’t announced till it was caught by a consumer rights group.
Over the past few days, we have received a lot of feedback about the new terms we posted two weeks ago. Because of this response, we have decided to return to our previous Terms of Use while we resolve the issues that people have raised. For more information, visit the Facebook Blog.
hmm there was definitely something fishy about it then, why would they reverse it if it was so transparent and necessary?
I don't think there is anything fishy about it, I mean most public BBs dont delete/mask the content either. It does look a little odd when you have content missing from old archived databanks just because the users deactivate their accounts in some point in time.
p.s. they reversed it because of the massive protests by the users, who complained the notice was too transparent for users.
Not in the lest!! I am one of the busiest one now on FB..and I am loving it!! and such steps–by Zucker Management–re-assures my faith that most or 90% of my FBFs are genuine–not pseudonyms !!