A propos to last night's discussion about social networking sites, the Times posted a brief article about privacy issues and Facebook-- responding in particular to Facebook's reassurance Monday that Facebook users, and not Facebook itself, own their own information.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/17/technology/internet/17facebook.html
As was mentioned in class lecture, the "fine print" in the user agreement of the site is generally ignored by users of the site (and most sites for that matter). But these agreements might disclose uses of information that may not be acceptable to users of the site.
As written in the article:
"This month, when Facebook updated its terms, it deleted a provision that said users could remove their content at any time, at which time the license would expire. Further, it added new language that said Facebook would retain users’ content and licenses after an account was terminated."
Of course-- who pays attention to that? Buyer beware, as they say...
The uproar over the language change came after it was publicized through a blog post. What I appreciate about the whole exchange, purely from a clinical stand point, is that both sides of the story-- Facebook as a social networking site and therefore essentially aggregator of personal information and contacts, and the blog post that outed the contract changes-- illustrate the power of information in the digital age. One, Facebook, raises the question of how companies can ethically and legally use that information, and the other brings to mind how consumers receive and respond to information. I think these aspects of the Web are continuing to evolve-- but in the meantime, the democratization of information allows the once marginalized consumer bring strength to their protests.
2 comments:
I think most people don't bother to read the "fine print" these days because companies have made the "fine print" so large that it is often not worthwhile. Why is it so large? maybe to cover any possible liability that may ever arise, maybe so that you won't bother to read it, or maybe a combination of the two. I think some legislation should be drawn up pertaining to "fine print" - just not sure what it should say- any ideas?
Actually, check this out: "Facebook Withdraws Changes in Data Use."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/19/technology/internet/19facebook.html?hp
The truth is, legally, companies don't really have a leg to stand on when people start suing them for certain violations of their rights. There is something in the law that suggests that if your "fine print" is too fine and long and exhausting, reasonable people cannot be expected to read it all. Thus, these people cannot reasonably be expected to know what they've signed and are, therefore, not accountable for it and are exempt from the "terms of service" that pop up on all these Web sites and applications. Now, Google is pretty smart and makes its "terms of service" relatively short and understandable, so consumers will have a tough time proving they shouldn't be held accountable for what they've signed or, better said, "clicked." But all those other sites and software publishers need to wise up, or they will face a lot of legal action in the future . . . and lose!
Post a Comment