Facebook is gradually getting there
They’ve put a bit into the mouths of their lawyers and today Facebook has posted a draft of a new terms of Serrvice that greatly improves the language and approach they’ve had (up until now) in regards to user’s rights to their data.
Right after supporting OpenID, Facebook got involved in a broo-hah-hah which pissed off allot of people and lost much of the positive juju they had JUST rightly earned by sponsoring an OpenID UX summit.
So today’s launch of a ‘governance’ approach to community feedback and much more transaprent TOS gets the good vibes back on track.
On first glance here’s what pops up to me:
- no access to emails - yet
- 9.2.1 You will only use the data you receive for your application, and will only use it in connection with Facebook.
- 9.2.7 We can limit your access to data.
- 9.2.8 You will not transfer the data you receive from us without our prior consent.
Hmmm - now let me see here. We’re NOT THERE YET! This is the user’s data, not Facebook’s!
I really like the principles and fundamental foundation of everything they’re preaching.
“Amen! Brother Zuckerberg!”
or shall I say:
“You’re a mensch!”
Though we’re not completely there yet - we’re at least headed in the right direction! Now lets just clear up these silly final issues and get on with it.
I have to say, I’m very unhappy about the whole thing. Of course, they mention “data ownership” that is a non-existing notion. Let’s try with a more obvious example: who can say “Genesis is mine, I own it!”?
Well, the problem is not as much with their obvious pandering (they are using the same sentences that everyone has been repeating, instead of trying to understand what is behind them) as with the lack of relevant element: when someone goes away, and two of his friends “I like”d a lot of his status, suggestions, etc. does Facebook remember that those two share taste? No, according to the common understanding, but Zuckeberg was defending that last week (and so was I). You don’t need to store anything about the departed party to remember that, do you? Then Facebook uses a distinct table? What does this talbe look like? Can’t information about the departed party be inferred from that table?
The other issue I have is that a lot of social scientists (me included) have been able thanks to technology like Facebook to find answers to important questions about how society is strctured. Yes, there is something that look like six degress of separation; no, it is no important per se — but behind that element of trivia, there are tons of insights. Facebook has refused all studies (rightfully so if you ask the most carefull people in the community of social graph scientist) but it doesn’t address the issue of statistical secret: that a group has milions of memebers is based on the accumulation of a lot of personal information — do we have to erase that, is that unacceptable abuse of the lack of consent of a million people? “Of course” no? Then what about two groups with each a thousand member: can we say how people belong to both? And what about more complex questions? There is no definition of the statistical secret in there, although there are immense benefit to aggregate the information.
I won’t ask to whom the statistics on unemployment belong, or if you can ask to be excluded from that figure — but the question is the same: can an institution provide something radically new based on personal data? Under what condition?
I have to say, I’m very unhappy about the whole thing. Of course, they mention “data ownership” that is a non-existing notion. Let’s try with a more obvious example: who can say “Genesis is mine, I own it!”?
Well, the problem is not as much with their obvious pandering (they are using the same sentences that everyone has been repeating, instead of trying to understand what is behind them) as with the lack of relevant element: when someone goes away, and two of his friends “I like”d a lot of his status, suggestions, etc. does Facebook remember that those two share taste? No, according to the common understanding, but Zuckeberg was defending that last week (and so was I). You don’t need to store anything about the departed party to remember that, do you? Then Facebook uses a distinct table? What does this talbe look like? Can’t information about the departed party be inferred from that table?
The other issue I have is that a lot of social scientists (me included) have been able thanks to technology like Facebook to find answers to important questions about how society is strctured. Yes, there is something that look like six degress of separation; no, it is no important per se — but behind that element of trivia, there are tons of insights. Facebook has refused all studies (rightfully so if you ask the most carefull people in the community of social graph scientist) but it doesn’t address the issue of statistical secret: that a group has milions of memebers is based on the accumulation of a lot of personal information — do we have to erase that, is that unacceptable abuse of the lack of consent of a million people? “Of course” no? Then what about two groups with each a thousand member: can we say how people belong to both? And what about more complex questions? There is no definition of the statistical secret in there, although there are immense benefit to aggregate the information.
I won’t ask to whom the statistics on unemployment belong, or if you can ask to be excluded from that figure — but the question is the same: can an institution provide something radically new based on personal data? Under what condition?
故事会为您提供情感故事,成人故事,法制故事,恐怖故事,笑话故事,校园故事,儿童故事等分类故事！
故事会为您提供情感故事,成人故事,法制故事,恐怖故事,笑话故事,校园故事,儿童故事等分类故事！