Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

The row over the changes Facebook made to its terms has thrown the light on the rights people surrender when they sign up to use a website. It is likely though that until the row over Facebook's Terms and Conditions went public, few people knew what rights sites claim over the content that their members upload and share. "Less than 25% of users are making a specific point of going to the privacy settings and making changes," said Simon Davies, head of digital rights group Privacy International. Most, he said, are so keen to get using a site after registering that they do not take time to learn what will happen to any data that they are surrendering. Only later do they go back and adjust what happens to their data. "A lot of sites do have strong privacy controls," said Mr Davies. Tweaking these settings can help cut down on how much of a person's data is distributed. "It can make a difference," said Mr Davies, "particularly if the default is set in terms of maximum information flow." Blogger Amanda French looked through the pages where sites such as Facebook, MySpace, Flickr, YouTube and others spelled out their policies with regard to the data that members upload. Although the wording was different, she found that sites such as MySpace, Yahoo, Google and Twitter explicitly backed away from claiming ownership over uploaded content. A brief survey of Europe's Top 5 social sites found a similar situation. The text of the terms available on the UK sites of Facebook, Bebo, MySpace, Friends Reunited and Windows Live all back away from claiming ownership. By contrast, she wrote, the changes Facebook made to its terms were "extraordinarily grabby and arrogant".

Though Facebook has sometimes been criticized for sacrificing the privacy of its users in order to monetize the service, Chris Kelly, Facebook's chief privacy officer, has presided over the social network's efforts to build out the most sophisticated privacy options in the industry. On a granular level, Facebook users can now control what bits of information they share with each individual friend, group or network. Facebook users have taken notice. According to an annual study by the Ponemon Institute, a privacy research firm, Facebook ranks within the top 20 (15th) most trusted companies for privacy as rated by U.S. consumers. Kelly's job sometimes appears tricky, however. He must ensure that users feel they have control over their information, while weighing that need against Facebook's business model, which relies heavily on a culture of openness and sharing. Here is the full interview CIO conducted with Kelly during our reporting for a special feature on social networks and privacy. Kelly talked about what constitutes Facebook's overall view towards privacy, and how that affects its ability to serve up ads.

Perhaps Mark Z is surprised that people actually read terms of service. Arrogant twit. He's a multi-millionaire who cares about the little people (stage direction: Mark Z looks sincerely into web cam as he wipes away tear with hundred dollar bill). Perhaps the Tweens don't understand what social networking sites really sell; looks like some grown ups started asking where all their personal information is going and when it might inconveniently show up in some ad campaign.

A couple of weeks ago, we revised our terms of use hoping to clarify some parts for our users. Over the past couple of days, we received a lot of questions and comments about the changes and what they mean for people and their information. Based on this feedback, we have decided to return to our previous terms of use while we resolve the issues that people have raised. Many of us at Facebook spent most of today discussing how best to move forward. One approach would have been to quickly amend the new terms with new language to clarify our positions further. Another approach was simply to revert to our old terms while we begin working on our next version. As we thought through this, we reached out to respected organizations to get their input. Going forward, we've decided to take a new approach towards developing our terms. We concluded that returning to our previous terms was the right thing for now. As I said yesterday, we think that a lot of the language in our terms is overly formal and protective so we don't plan to leave it there for long. More than 175 million people use Facebook. If it were a country, it would be the sixth most populated country in the world. Our terms aren't just a document that protect our rights; it's the governing document for how the service is used by everyone across the world. Given its importance, we need to make sure the terms reflect the principles and values of the people using the service. Our next version will be a substantial revision from where we are now. It will reflect the principles I described yesterday around how people share and control their information, and it will be written clearly in language everyone can understand. Since this will be the governing document that we'll all live by, Facebook users will have a lot of input in crafting these terms. You have my commitment that we'll do all of these things, but in order to do them right it will take a little bit of time. We expect to complete this in the next few we

For months somebody (I don't know who) has been running a Facebook profile that bears my name, my personal information and several photos of me. An old high school friend had connected with the faker, instead of me. Several of the people with whom fake Matt is friends also appeared to be fakes, including a copycat of Vertex Pharmaceuticals ( VRTX - news - people ) founder and chief executive Joshua Boger. (Boger has a real Facebook profile but isn't friends with me. He declined to comment on the fakesters.) I couldn't see this Fake Matt's profile myself, even by searching for my name.

Everywhere you look (even here at Ars), there are articles about people making poor decisions about what kinds of info and how much to share on sites like Facebook. The Internet is no longer a place where you can hide out easily-friends, family, and employers are all lurking, reading your embarrassing status updates and checking up on those drunken pictures from last week. And that's just the beginning-the world of social networking is a feeding ground for identity thieves and stalkers, too. But it doesn't have to be that way. Many users are aware that Facebook has numerous privacy controls, for example, but even the most experienced Facebook users often don't know just how much they can control who sees what. For instance, did you know that you can specify...

What companies do you trust to guard your privacy? According to a Wednesday study from the Ponemon Institute and TRUSTe, eBay is the most trusted company for privacy, followed by Verizon and the U.S. Postal Service. Facebook, meanwhile, cracked the study's top ten for the first time. To reach its conclusions, Ponemon and TRUSTe first polled more than 6,000 adults on their "most trusted" brands. An expert review panel then compared those results against the companies' privacy statements, notices, to what levels they accessed account information, their cookie management, in- and out-of-network data sharing practices, and the availability of customer service staff. Of the top 10 companies, seven of them were technology-related. The entire list includes eBay, Verizon, the U.S. Postal Service, WebMD, IBM, Procter & Gamble, Nationwide, Intuit, Yahoo, and Facebook. "With the banking industry at the center of a national financial crisis, it's no surprise to see a loss of trust reflected in the rankings of even those top performers on this list," Dr. Larry Ponemon, chairman and founder of the Ponemon Institute, said in a statement. "Meanwhile, the continued strong showing of e-businesses such as eBay, WebMD, Yahoo, and Facebook seems to demonstrate consumers' growing comfort with doing business online."

Facebook has agreed to make changes to better protect users' personal information on the social networking site and comply with Canadian privacy laws within one year, Canada's privacy commissioner said Thursday. "These changes mean that the privacy of 200 million Facebook users in Canada and around the world will be far better protected," said privacy commissioner Jennifer Stoddart.

One of my predictions for last year was that privacy would be a growing concern among mainstream users. I didn't repeat that prediction this year, but perhaps I should have. The reason? Apparently, younger web users seem to care more about privacy controls. Or at least, they use them more. According to Facebook chief privacy officer Chris Kelly, more teenagers than adults use privacy controls on the social network, at a rate of 60% to about 25-30%. That's surprising given the conventional wisdom that younger Internet users tend not to care about the privacy of their data. A recent study from Computer Associates confirms that many teens are at least somewhat concerned with online privacy. That study showed that 79% of teens aged 13-17 who are members of a social networking site like MySpace or Facebook protect their profiles from the general Internet in some way (i.e., only allow friends or friends of friends to view their information). Profiles on Facebook, of course, are automatically protected from viewing by the Internet at large, but protecting them from the rest of your network requires additional steps. That teens are more likely to utilize Facebook's granular privacy controls points to one of two things that lead to the same conclusion: 1. Teens care more about online privacy than adults, or, 2. Teens are simply more aware of social networking privacy controls than adults.

"Part one of a two-part series: Facebook, the global phenomenon in Web-based social media, rolled out a massive overhaul of its privacy protection policies and technology this week-and in so doing may have drawn up a playbook for healthcare as well, industry experts say. The privacy upgrade gives its 350 million worldwide users increased control over who has access to some of, but not all, the information on their personal pages. These new, so-called "granular" controls-specifically those embedded in the site's "publisher" function, which enables a user to post new material to his or her Facebook pages-reach down to the level of discrete data elements. The new controls, for example, allow a user to restrict who gets to see each newly posted photo or typed comment"

"A privacy watchdog's criticisms of Facebook appear to have captured the attention of the Federal Trade Commission. In a letter dated Jan. 14, David Vladeck, head of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection, told the Electronic Privacy Information Center that its complaint about recent privacy changes at Facebook "raises issues of particular interest for us at this time." Vladeck added that he has asked an official to arrange a followup meeting with EPIC, but also said he can't currently confirm or deny whether the FTC has opened an investigation. FTC investigations are not public until the agency either issues a complaint or closes the matter. The FTC's consumer protection chief also said in his letter to EPIC that the commission plans to focus on privacy issues raised by social networks at the next roundtable, scheduled to be held in Berkeley, Calif. on Jan. 28. "

FTC may investigate privacy issues on FaceBook? Equal bang for the buck by identifying and educating users who post way too much personal information.

Social media is on the rise, and so are the privacy and security risks. Is it time to dial back on the whole Web 2.0 'friend' thing? The social media honeymoon is officially over. While it may not yet be time to fly to Reno for a quickie divorce, you might want to start thinking about sleeping in separate bedrooms for a while. Example du jour: Over the weekend, a rogue application spread across Facebook, warning users about bogus errors in their profiles. Clicking on the "Error Check System" app causes it to send false warnings to your entire FB posse, per the unofficial AllFacebook blog. There doesn't seem to be any payload associated with that app besides driving traffic, but the potential for abuse is obvious. But a bigger problem on social nets is an old familiar one: spam. So far, spam only accounts for about 5 to 25 percent of all e-mail passed on social networks, versus 90 percent of regular e-mail, says Adam O'Donnell, director of emerging tech for Cloudmark, which filters spam for some large social nets (but won't identify which ones). As more people start tweeting about what their cats ate for lunch and share their Facebook profiles with near-total strangers, though, that number will only grow. The type of spam on social networks is different too, says O'Donnell. Think fewer fake Viagra come-ons, more social engineering scams. In other words, the junk you get on social networks is more likely to be aimed at stealing your credentials or your identity -- and thus much more dangerous than garden-variety spam.

Diplomats and civil servants are to be warned about the danger of putting details of their family and career on social networking websites. The advice comes after the wife of Sir John Sawers, the next head of MI6, put family details on Facebook - which is accessible to millions of internet users. Lady Sawers disclosed details such as the location of the London flat used by the couple and the whereabouts of their three children and of Sir John's parents. She put no privacy protection on her account, allowing any of Facebook's 200 million users in the open-access London network to see the entries. Lady Sawers' half-brother, Hugo Haig-Thomas, a former diplomat, was among those featured in family photographs on Facebook. Mr HaigThomas was an associate and researcher for David Irving, the controversial historian who was jailed in Austria in 2006 after pleading guilty to Holocaust denial. Patrick Mercer, the Conservative chairman of the Commons counter-terrorism sub-committee, said that the entries were a serious error and potentially damaging.

"Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg made some big announcements Wednesday from the company's headquarters in Palo Alto about changes to how users control and organize their information on the service. Zuckerberg has been criticized in the past for not caring about privacy, making statements that worry some. He once told TechCrunch that privacy was no longer the social norm. But the 26-year-old CEO has just done an about face. He told a room full of journalists, "It is a core part of our belief that people own and have control of all the information they upload.""

Can Zuckerberg be trusted not to reverse course - again. His immaturity as a leader and abuse of user trust makes one question everything that comes out of the man's mouth.

Following on the heels of Facebook's decision to rescind a highly controversial move to store all content posted on the social network, new data has emerged to support consumers' increasing alarm over online privacy. The vast majority--80.1%--of Web surfers are indeed concerned about the privacy of their personal information such as age, gender, income and Web-surfing habits, according to a survey of some 4,000 Web users administered and analyzed by Burst Media. More worrisome, perhaps, is the finding that privacy concerns are prevalent among all age segments, including younger demographics that are coming of age online. Still, privacy concerns do appear to increase with age, from 67.3% among respondents ages 18-24 to 85.7% of respondents 55 years and older. "Online privacy is a prevailing concern for web surfers," said Chuck Moran, vice president of marketing for Burst Media. The survey was administered by Burst with the purpose of better understanding how privacy is impacting Web users' experiences online, as well as its impact on advertisers. "Advertisers must take concrete actions to mitigate consumers' privacy concerns and at the same time continue to deliver their message as effectively as possible," Moran added. "In addition, and as recently seen in the news flare up regarding Facebook's privacy controversy, publishers need to be completely transparent about their privacy policies." Facebook recently changed its terms of use agreement, which gave the Palo Alto, Calif.-based company the ability to store user-posted photos and other content, even after it was deleted by users themselves. Earlier this week, however, the company reverted to a previous version of its legal user guidelines after thousands of members protested that Facebook was claiming ownership over the content. In addition, the Burst survey found that most Web users believe Web sites are tracking their behavior online. Three out of five--62.5%--respondents indicated it is likely that a W

The fuss over Facebook's attempt to modify the contract with its millions of users has died down for the moment, and I haven't noticed any of my friends closing their account or even significantly changing their behaviour in protest despite the widespread coverage. The problem started in early February when Facebook updated the section on its site which establishes the legal agreement with its users. Like most people who use it I didn't notice the change, and even though Facebook clearly knows who I am and how to contact me I didn't get a message or see a notification in my news feed about it. This is pretty common practice on the web, where long legal contracts are agreed with a click of a mouse and sites update them at will because they contain a clause saying that you accept the changes if you carry on using the site. Term paper Unlike laws passed by Parliament, which have to be properly promulgated to those affected, contracts can evidently be changed without any proper notice.

Personal profiles on Facebook and other social-networking sites are a trove of inappropriate and embarrassing photographs and discomfiting breaches of confidentiality. You might expect that from your friends and even some colleagues - but what about your doctor? A new survey of medical-school deans finds that unprofessional conduct on blogs and social-networking sites is common among medical students. Although med students fully understand patient-confidentiality laws and are indoctrinated in the high ethical standards to which their white-coated profession is held, many of them still use Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Flickr and other sites to depict and discuss lewd behavior and sexual misconduct, make discriminatory statements and discuss patient cases in violation of confidentiality laws, according to the survey, which was published this week in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Of the 80 medical-school deans questioned, 60% reported incidents involving unprofessional postings and 13% admitted to incidents that violated patient privacy. Some offenses led to expulsion from school.

The private correspondence of millions of people who use social networking sites could be tracked and saved on a "big brother" database, under new plans being drawn up by the UK government. Ministers revealed yesterday that they were considering policing messages sent via sites such as MySpace and Facebook, alongside plans to store information about every phone call, e-mail and internet visit made by everyone in the United Kingdom. There was immediate uproar from opposition parties, privacy campaigners and security experts who said the plans were over-the-top and unworkable. There have long been proposals, following an European Union directive in the wake of the July 2005 bombings in London, for emails and internet usage to be tracked in order to guard against future terrorist attacks.

GovLoop (http://govloop.com), an online community created for and by government employees, announced today it has signed up its 10,000th member less than a year after launching. Dubbed by some as a "Facebook for Feds," GovLoop brings together government employees from the U.S. and other nations to discuss ideas, share best practices and create a community dedicated to the betterment of government. A revolution is happening in government as the result of a new generation of government employees, the rise of Web 2.0 technologies, and the Obama administration's focus on transparency, participation, and collaboration. This revolution is often called "Government 2.0" and GovLoop is at the center of this movement. The social network was developed by Steve Ressler, a 28-year old federal employee from Tampa, Fla. who is also a co-founder of Young Government Leaders (http://youngovernmentleaders.org). Fed up with the silos that existed across government agencies, including artificial barriers between levels of government, rank and age, Ressler believed there had to be a better way to share information, so he launched GovLoop.com in June 2008.

Maintaining privacy is on many people's minds these days, but sometimes that's the last thing they do. Allegations last week that two British tabloids, The Sun and The News of the World, had employed high-technology snoops to listen in on the mobile phone messages of public figures highlighted fears of what can happen when digital data fall into dubious hands. The reports came only days after another privacy debacle, this one self-inflicted. Photos and family information about Sir John Sawers, soon to be Britain's chief spy, appeared in another newspaper, The Mail on Sunday, after his wife posted them on Facebook. While attitudes toward privacy can appear paradoxical, the seeming contradiction is really about something else: control. When people bare their bodies on Facebook or their souls in the digital confessional of Google's search engine, they feel as if they are in charge. Not so, when the private embarrassments come to light unexpectedly.

While 51% of the comments were posted to blogs and 30% to message boards, just 7% appeared on Facebook and 7% on Twitter.