It appears that Facebook is subscribing to the same policy as it relates to their privacy policies since they made privacy an after thought by opening up the Facebook world to the everyone else in the world by default. As one might expect, privacy advocates like EPIC (Electronic Privacy Information Center) don’t like the direction this is heading so they wrote a complaint to the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) and MediaPost tells us the result:

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.

“As the amount of personal information shared on social networking sites grows, and the number of third parties and advertising networks with access to such information grows, it is important that consumers understand how their data is being shared and what privacy rules apply,” Vladeck wrote. “The Commission staff believes it is critical that companies provide transparency about how this data is being handled, maintained, shared, and protected, and what steps consumers may take to control the use of their information.”

While these things often are a lot of bluster and noise from government agencies one has to suspect that with the current administration’s desire to control every aspect of everything for everybody this will get some attention for sure. One thing most companies like to avoid is being investigated by the Feds but it could very well be a part of Facebook’s future. They have already capitulated to the demands of the Canadian government so the precedent is in place for Facebook to have to do something different if there is significant pressure and the right threats coming from Washington.

To get the ball rolling a complaint was filed.

Last month, EPIC and nine other groups filed a complaint alleging that Facebook’s new privacy settings constitute an unfair and deceptive change in terms.

This is in addition to Mark Zuckerberg’s redefinition of privacy in the online world, in which he essentially said that everyone now knows that there is not much privacy on the Internet and as a result the once super private Facebook should open it’s policies so that everyone can “share”. (I am SO glad that I have someone like Mark Zuckerberg who is so wise and all knowing to make that decision for me. How about you?). The net result is being arrogant enough to attract the attention and potential ire of the Feds. Oh well.

Lastly there has been an alleged Facebook anonymous employee who puts words to what those in the know likely assumed but those who have no clue would not be too thrilled with by saying

In addition, a Facebook employee allegedly said recently that users’ messages are stored in a database regardless of whether users attempt to delete them. “We track everything. Every photo you view, every person you’re tagged with, every wall-post you make, and so forth,” the employee allegedly added.

Facebook’s response?

Facebook spokesperson Andrew Noyes said that EPIC’s latest filing “offers little or no new information to substantiate the claims they make.”

So will 2010 be Facebook’s year of privacy? If it is, it is off to a bit of a rocky start.

Comments

Ah yes. What would a day in business be these days without the long arm of the government making sure that everyone plays by their rules rather than the rules that might stimulate a recovery? MediaPost tells us that the FCC has decided that the wireless industry needs to be looked into because, well, here’s their reasons.

After months of controversy surrounding wireless companies, the Federal Communications Commission voted unanimously on Thursday to launch a wide-ranging probe of the wireless industry.

“We are transitioning from a voice-centric world to a world of ubiquitous, mobile Internet access,” said FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski. “This transition promises to increase the pace of innovation and investment, but only if we have an open and competitive marketplace that gives every great idea a chance to make its way to consumers so that the best products or services win.”

So we are to assume that the same government that hands out money to big business who totally screwed the pooch in the financial sector will have the competitive best interests of all in mind? Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

The investigation, which could pave the way for new regulations, will encompass a variety of matters, including spectrum availability, wireless networks, devices, applications, and business practices. In addition, the FCC said it’s seeking comments about “how the public has used wireless services and technology to solve real-world problems in areas such as health care, energy, education, and public safety.”

Other concerns have been expressed about keeping net neutrality across the wireless spectrum. What advocacy groups are concerned about is pricing and roaming charges across networks etc. As long as the government doesn’t hinder our ability to actually use these services (and make the CHOICE to pay for them if we so wish) they can do what they want.

The US government is more of an M & A machine these days than an overseer. That’s not going to work in the wireless industry because it is growing and not dying. No saves need to be made here. Of course, there needs to be protections for consumers but at what cost? We are in the middle of an economic morass that has very few bright lights but the Internet and wireless services are among them. The last thing we need is the government coming in and making sure everything is working correctly. If that’s not the classic case of ‘those who can’t do teach’ then I don’t know what is.

So let’s here it Pilgrims. Where should the government be on the wireless industry? Will an FCC probe serve to accelerate growth and open up competition or will it grind things to a halt and stymie progress? I have to suspect that there are more than a few differing points of view out there so let’s solve the world’s wireless woes right here and now. Or we could just call it an early Friday and start the weekend? You make the call (but maybe on a landline so you won’t be ‘probed’).

Comments

In order to comply with Canadian privacy law, Facebook must take greater responsibility for the personal information in its care, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada said today in announcing the results of an investigation into the popular social networking site’s privacy policies and practices.

Excuse me while I take a deep breath. Ok. So the Canadian government is now telling a private American company just how they are to conduct business to their standards? I can see where the Canadian government may be concerned to one degree but there is a rub. Everyone who puts a profile on Facebook opts in and agrees to the privacy policy. It’s that little thing about people making their own choices. If they were concerned about privacy issues do you think anyone would be on Facebook? Some people treat it like they live in a glass house that shows everything they do all the time; by choice.

For all of you fans of more regulation of everything I hear where there may be concern that something may happen that could upset a citizen or two. At what point though do you stop telling the general public that they simply are not smart enough to make a decision on their own so the government will make it for them?

Yes this is a bit of a rant but I think this is ridiculous. Here is some of the press release on the Canadian government site:

An overarching concern was that, although Facebook provides information about its privacy practices, it is often confusing or incomplete. For example, the “account settings” page describes how to deactivate accounts, but not how to delete them, which actually removes personal data from Facebook’s servers.

The Privacy Commissioner’s report recommends more transparency, to ensure that the social networking site’s nearly 12 million Canadian users have the information they need to make meaningful decisions about how widely they share personal information.

The investigation also raised significant concerns around the sharing of users’ personal information with third-party developers creating Facebook applications such as games and quizzes. (There are more than 950,000 developers in some 180 countries.) Facebook lacks adequate safeguards to effectively restrict these outside developers from accessing profile information, the investigation found.

So the Canadian government has told Facebook to make changes. Facebook has made some but not all. The story says that the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada will have 30 days to review any changes that Facebook has made then Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart can take the issue to the Canadian federal court for enforcement.

I’ll say it again, people are opting in and with that comes inherent risk. At what point will the Canadian government feel comfortable with how well the data is protected and if it isn’t will they stop their citizens from using the service? Maybe I’m getting Canada confused with another country that starts with a C and their Internet policies: China.

Comments

Reuters reported that another of the US government’s big boys, the FTC (Federal Trade Commission), fired a warning shot across the bow of Internet companies regarding proper collection and use of data for advertising.

FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz said that

Companies that track consumer behavior on the Web for targeted advertising without proper consent are near their “last chance” to self-regulate.

Last chance? There were no apparent direct threats against any particular companies but privacy advocates were throwing around names such as AT&T and Google. When you talk in those circles things could get pretty interesting if the long arm of the government decides that the regulations are indeed too lax as claimed by these groups.

Earlier in the year the FTC issued some guidance to big data collectors that they need to make their techniques more known to their users and make it clear that they may opt out. While I am not a huge fan of too much government in anything business related (not exactly the best of times for people like myself these days) I have to think that there is some relevance to this particular area in question.

Personalization of search, for instance, gets more attention every so often and is heralded as the big ‘game changer’ for all search related activities. Once the industry coverage dies down, however, so does the attention paid to it over all. I have to think though that the average Google user has little to no idea of just how much data is being collected on their behaviors while doing searches logged in to a Google account. Google doesn’t go out of its way to remind folks that they can refuse to participate by logging out of their account when using the search engine.

So essentially the ball is in the court of these big players because it has not been said that regulation is imminent. In fact, it seems that some form of self-regulation is being urged by the government so they don’t have to jump in. Their patience may be running thin though. Liebowitz has said, “From my perspective, the industry is pretty close to its last clear chance to demonstrate” that it can police itself.”

If I were one of these big boys I certainly wouldn’t want regulation to be coming from a third party while there is still a chance to self-police. The final thought from the FTC chairman

If companies fail to do a better job of making their privacy policies understandable to the average person, momentum will keep building for greater regulation, Leibowitz said. “It’s really up to industry.”

The ball appears to be in the court of Google and the rest of the information age giants. Will they turn a blind eye and dare the government to regulate? With Eric Schmidt’s close ties to the current administration would there be enough capital there to keep this movement at bay? Time will always tell but the clock sounds like it may be ticking a little louder.

Comments