Law professor argues that Facebook's Social Ads may be illegal

Facebook executives have recently been quoted as saying they want to take over the world, but something might already be getting in their way: the law.

The New York Times' Saul Hansell has linked to a blog post from William McGeveran, a professor at the University of Minnesota Law School, in which McGeveran asserts that an obscure, 100-year-old New York privacy law may put a damper on Facebook's new "Social Ads" program, which inserts "endorsements" from your friends on the social-networking site.

Plenty of pundits have already argued that this program could be really annoying, but if McGeveran is right, it also could violate a law that was instituted to protect people from having their names and likenesses used for advertisements without permission. Specific written consent, he underscored, is necessary. True, it's a state law, but the fact that Social Ads are online, and hence displayed on computers in New York, could get in the way.

"I don't see how broad general consent to share one's information translates into the specific written consent necessary for advertisers to use one's name (and often picture) under this law," McGeveran wrote.

According to Hansell's article in the Times, Facebook's chief privacy officer has already said he thinks McGeveran's interpretation of the law is too broad to apply to Facebook's Social Ads.

[mattonen]

Protection for Online posters..

I am indeed grateful to hear about this law.
What many also bring up with this topic is the changes of Terms of Service and how many of these websites state in their agreements that one agrees automatically to any changes of service by agreeing to the terms.
BUT? If I remember correctly - One party is unable to Unilaterally change the terms of a contract or service agreement without first obtaining the other parties consent before doing so.

How would anyone know when to check a website so that they are aware of any changes have been implemented? and if they don't agree with them, then what? Are they now able to Remove their information? are they able to leave that site as clean and clear as the day they went to it?

I know for a Personal fact that is not always the case. Yes, indeed, I am grateful of hearing about this law. There is a commercial site in NY, that is holding my Name and all of my comments hostage. I have NO access to any of MY information, (I am unable to View or respond to the Majority of my comments and data); Which also means that there is no ability to respond to disparaging comments regarding my professional identity. I have NO access to my forum Members. Most importantly my name is being used without my permission.

I asked them to remove, and they stated it was an inconvenience to them, but that they would be willing to ?edit? several of my 8 years of posts for me, quoting their current TSA. What gives? They even are willing to EDIT my posts for me?

When I joined the network, the terms of Service was indeed not the same as it is today.. I was not aware of any changes to the TSA, was not alerted, and the only time that I became aware of the damaging consequences was after the damages were in effect.

What is really of interest is that The TSA also states that an individual is allowed to disable their account at anytime.. but, unfortunately I am not allowed the same privilege.. so, what gives??

And today, they say that they have Non Exclusive Rights to my material, Yet then say they have full exclusive rights.. Quite Ambiguous No????

Sometimes these laws may seem unfair to some, but, there are many TSA's that also attempt take away the rights of the original authors, or the individuals who want to be able to control not only their Content, but their Name as well. Should we not have that right?

Most individuals don?t realize the extent or even the problems that can occur when we randomly say Yes, I accept these agreements.

Oh, and many think we can just sue, well, if one can find an attorney who is wiling to do it, it can cost a pretty penny!
Karen M