Data cops: Facebook privacy plans must be 'modified'

We don't need your consent ... bitch


Two privacy campaign groups have urged Facebook to rethink plans to change its terms of service, designed to help the social network squeeze more money out of ads. Meanwhile data regulators have stated that the plans will have to change so as to comply with privacy rules.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) and the Center for Digital Democracy (CDD) penned a joint letter requesting Facebook reconsider its proposals that are supposed to be implemented tomorrow.

The US-based privacy outfits objected to three areas: the axing of users' right to vote on Facebook policy changes; changes to the blocking of unwanted messages; and, most crucially, a shift to share users' personal data across its growing online estate now that photo-sharing startup Instagram is part of the family.

Facebook, which floated on the Nasdaq in May, has told its users that it hoped to "improve the quality of ads" by making the tweaks to its service.

But EPIC and CDD aren't happy with the plans.

"Because these proposed changes raise privacy risks for users, may be contrary to law, and violate your previous commitments to users about site governance, we urge you to withdraw the proposed changes," the groups pleaded with Facebook.

EPIC, in a short statement, pointed out that while it's true that Facebook is now on Wall Street with the big money boys, the company remains tied to a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) settlement that "prohibits the company from changing privacy settings without the affirmative consent of users or misrepresenting the privacy or security of users' personal information".

Indeed, as of November 2011, Facebook agreed to bi-annual privacy audits for two decades as part of its deal with the FTC. At the time the US watchdog said Facebook must be clear about changes to its website, including providing a "prominent notice" to users.

The social network was told it should obtain "express consent" before a user's information is shared beyond any privacy settings already established by an individual connected to Facebook.

Arguably then, Facebook is failing to honour at least part of its agreement with the FTC: the website did inform all of its users of the plans in an email outlining the proposed tweaks. But it may have fallen down on the requirement to seek "express consent" for sharing data beyond the limits set in place by users. That said, the stateside regulator is yet to publicly express any disquiet about the company's incoming privacy policy overhaul.

In contrast, here in Europe, the office of Ireland's Data Protection Commissioner confirmed late last week that it was seeking "urgent clarification" from Facebook - whose European headquarters are in Dublin - about the changes.

Facebook declined to comment on this story beyond pointing to a brief statement made by its Washington-based spokesman Andrew Noyes to the LA Times on Monday. He told the newspaper:

As our company grows, we acquire businesses that become a legal part of our organisation. Those companies sometimes operate as affiliates. We wanted to clarify that we will share information with our affiliates and vice versa, both to help improve our services and theirs, and to take advantage of storage efficiencies.

A spokeswoman at the Irish Data Protection Commission told The Register this morning that the authority had since heard from Facebook about its proposed changes.

"We have sought and received clarifications on a number of aspects and have outlined our position in relation to what consent will be required for aspects of the policy," the commission's spokeswoman said.

"Facebook Ireland has understood this position and we expect the proposed data use policy to be modified to take account of these issues."

El Reg asked Facebook if this meant the company would comply with the Irish Data Protection Commission's request for modifications to the privacy policy or if it would simply forge ahead with the changes and continue to battle with the regulator on the topic of consent.

The company declined to comment and instead redirected us to Facebook's statement from late last week in which it said:

"We are in regular contact with our regulators to ensure that we maintain high standards of transparency in respect of our policies and practices. We expect to maintain a continuous dialogue with the Irish DPC as our service evolves." ®

Similar topics


Other stories you might like

  • Prisons transcribe private phone calls with inmates using speech-to-text AI

    Plus: A drug designed by machine learning algorithms to treat liver disease reaches human clinical trials and more

    In brief Prisons around the US are installing AI speech-to-text models to automatically transcribe conversations with inmates during their phone calls.

    A series of contracts and emails from eight different states revealed how Verus, an AI application developed by LEO Technologies and based on a speech-to-text system offered by Amazon, was used to eavesdrop on prisoners’ phone calls.

    In a sales pitch, LEO’s CEO James Sexton told officials working for a jail in Cook County, Illinois, that one of its customers in Calhoun County, Alabama, uses the software to protect prisons from getting sued, according to an investigation by the Thomson Reuters Foundation.

    Continue reading
  • Battlefield 2042: Please don't be the death knell of the franchise, please don't be the death knell of the franchise

    Another terrible launch, but DICE is already working on improvements

    The RPG Greetings, traveller, and welcome back to The Register Plays Games, our monthly gaming column. Since the last edition on New World, we hit level cap and the "endgame". Around this time, item duping exploits became rife and every attempt Amazon Games made to fix it just broke something else. The post-level 60 "watermark" system for gear drops is also infuriating and tedious, but not something we were able to address in the column. So bear these things in mind if you were ever tempted. On that note, it's time to look at another newly released shit show – Battlefield 2042.

    I wanted to love Battlefield 2042, I really did. After the bum note of the first-person shooter (FPS) franchise's return to Second World War theatres with Battlefield V (2018), I stupidly assumed the next entry from EA-owned Swedish developer DICE would be a return to form. I was wrong.

    The multiplayer military FPS market is dominated by two forces: Activision's Call of Duty (COD) series and EA's Battlefield. Fans of each franchise are loyal to the point of zealotry with little crossover between player bases. Here's where I stand: COD jumped the shark with Modern Warfare 2 in 2009. It's flip-flopped from WW2 to present-day combat and back again, tried sci-fi, and even the Battle Royale trend with the free-to-play Call of Duty: Warzone (2020), which has been thoroughly ruined by hackers and developer inaction.

    Continue reading
  • American diplomats' iPhones reportedly compromised by NSO Group intrusion software

    Reuters claims nine State Department employees outside the US had their devices hacked

    The Apple iPhones of at least nine US State Department officials were compromised by an unidentified entity using NSO Group's Pegasus spyware, according to a report published Friday by Reuters.

    NSO Group in an email to The Register said it has blocked an unnamed customers' access to its system upon receiving an inquiry about the incident but has yet to confirm whether its software was involved.

    "Once the inquiry was received, and before any investigation under our compliance policy, we have decided to immediately terminate relevant customers’ access to the system, due to the severity of the allegations," an NSO spokesperson told The Register in an email. "To this point, we haven’t received any information nor the phone numbers, nor any indication that NSO’s tools were used in this case."

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021