Case #2: Ethical and Legal Issues

Over the past few years the social networking site Facebook has been the center numerous privacy related issues and uproars. The sites introduction of its News Feed was followed with a plethora of complaints, various new nicknames (such as “Stalkerbook”), and the creation of a few new Facebook groups that called for immediate action from the site. After a few days of these complaints, Facebook responded with a post on every member’s home page clarifying that users would be able to edit what information would be posted to the News Feed and extended what seemed to be a sincere apology. This seemed to calm the angry waters of the Internet for a little while. However, Facebook has stirred up privacy troubles once again. This time they have transcended from not only broadcasting what users are currently doing to basically owning what users are doing.

That’s right.

Recently news came to light of Facebook’s new privacy policy. By agreeing to Facebook’s new policy, users basically allowed Facebook to claim the rights to anything that was posted on the site. This even included pictures. According to the privacy policy,

“You hereby grant Facebook an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to (a) use, copy, publish, stream, store, retain, publicly perform or display, transmit, scan, reformat, modify, edit, frame, translate, excerpt, adapt, create derivative works and distribute (through multiple tiers), any User Content you (i) Post on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof subject only to your privacy settings....

You may remove your User Content from the Site at any time. If you choose to remove your User Content, the license granted above will automatically expire, however you acknowledge that the Company may retain archived copies of your User Content.” (Terdiman).

Has Facebook crossed the line?

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg claimed that the licensing of such documents were a necessary step in order to share information with other people on the networking site. Licenses are defined as a method of intellectual property protection and allow the buyer to use the product but restrict duplication or distribution. Zuckerberg also stated,

“Our philosophy is that people own their information and control who they share it with. When a person shares information on Facebook, they first need to grant Facebook a license to use that information so that we can show it to the other people they've asked us to share it with. Without this license, we couldn't help people share that information.”

By Wednesday, February 18, Zuckerberg posted a blog entry on Facebook stating that the company would start to develop the terms, and they would return to the previous terms of use for a little while (Zuckerberg). A similar message also appeared on user’s home pages briefly on Wednesday.

Most recently, a message notifying users of their ability to help draft new privacy policies has appeared on home pages. Coming from a site that claimed to own everything users posted to one that gives users an opportunity to contribute ideas and help structure an integral part of an expansive site is a tremendous turn around.

Recent message sent to Facebook users

Personally, I think that Facebook stepped over the line with this issue. It’s one thing to inform people of user’s select actions. It’s entirely different to claim ownership of those user’s content. How can a company say that they now own photos and information that users have uploaded? The users put a certain amount of trust into Facebook. It takes a lot for someone to put personal information on a website that is used by millions of other members. These users are what make Facebook successful. Without them, the site would be nothing. When Facebook desecrates user’s trust, it could be difficult to get back.

However, users also have to be aware that they aren’t putting their information into a safe that’s locked and stashed behind a painting. While Facebook seems to be fairly personal, it’s still a facet of the Internet. People need to be aware that there is a chance that random people may be able to see private content. An easy solution to this is to not put content up that you may not want someone to see. If there’s no content to claim ownership to, then users can’t be worried about who owns that content.

I think that Facebook’s solution to the current problem may not fully rectify the company’s encroachment on user’s privacy, but it does give the company more credibility. Giving users the option to contribute to the company’s rules and regulations helps to make the users feel more important while at the same time giving Facebook an out for potential future problems. For example, if a future problem occurs, Facebook can turn around and say that these regulations were placed in part by the users themselves.

The troubling fact about Facebook users is that it seems like no matter what they are put through, they will still continue to use the social networking site. Whether this is because of love for the site, addiction to looking at glimpses of other people’s lives, or the need to feel accepted by receiving a flood of requests from other users, it seems clear that people will keep on logging in. Hopefully Facebook will recognize that the next time it messes up, its users may not be so forgiving.

Who wouldn't want to own the rights to this picture? (Kidding...)

References

Zuckerberg, Mark. February 18, 2009. Facebook.com. “Updates on Terms.” http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=54746167130

Terdiman, Daniel. February 17, 2009.CNetNews.com. “EPIC readying federal complaint over Facebook Privacy Policy.” http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10166290-2.html