Facebook privacy lawsuit 'a jumbled mess'
While I can't comment on the entire suit, it's clear to me that parts of the just-filed privacy lawsuit against Facebook represent a lack of understanding of how social networks like Facebook work as well as how best to protect children and adults on the Internet. I'm especially baffled by the allegation that Facebook violated the rights of an 11-year-old child because he disclosed that he had swine flu.
The suit, brought by five plaintiffs in Southern California, alleges that Facebook violates California privacy laws.
The child who said he had swine flu is identified as "Xavier O." The complaint says he "has a Facebook account that was opened without the knowledge or consent of his parents." He allegedly "uploaded personal information, videos and photographs, including swimming and/or partially clothed photographs of children ages 5 to 11." It further says that he posted information that he had swine flu and asked people to "Please pray for me...God Bless." The complaint says that "upon learning of the Facebook account and the posting of an uncertain medical condition," the child's parents "removed the medical condition postings from Facebook" and that "Xavier O. and his parents have been unable to learn where the minor's medical information may have been stored, disseminated or sold by Facebook."
(Disclosure: I'm co-director of ConnectSafely.org, a nonprofit organization that receives financial support from Facebook as well as other companies.)
I don't know where to begin parsing young Xavier's case. First, by simply having a Facebook account he was violating Facebook's terms of service. And why did his parents only remove "the minor's medical information?" They should have deleted his entire account.
Like all reputable social networking sites, Facebook complies with the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) by not allowing children under 13 to have accounts (COPPA does make provisions for accounts for children under 13 but imposes certain conditions including parental consent). The only way for this young man to obtain a Facebook account would be to lie about his date of birth.
Facebook makes reasonable efforts to remove accounts of children where there is evidence they are under 13, but it's not possible to catch every violator of these terms and its attempts to validate the ages of members are consistent with industry practices. While it could be argued that they should be using some type of age-verification technology, an exhaustive investigation of those technologies by the Harvard Berkman Center led Internet Safety Technology Task Force (of which I was a member) determined that such technologies, at the current time, are neither effective nor necessarily desirable.
Once on Facebook, anything a person posts can, by default, be seen only by his friends or people in his network. If Xavier's profile was available to additional people, it was because he changed his default privacy settings. But, even if he hadn't, there is always the possibility that a friend or anyone with access to his profile could copy any text or images posted and disseminate them. So of course it's possible that such information could have been stored, or disseminated. In an e-mail interview, Facebook spokesman Barry Schnitt said, "There are no circumstances under which we would have sold that information." He further points out that the plaintiffs in the suit "make many assertions about mining data and selling it, but never say who is buying."
What I find very strange is the statement that the 11-year-old had posted "swimming and/or partially clothed photographs of children ages 5 to 11." Could they be implying he was posting child pornography images? If so (and I doubt it), this kid could find himself in juvenile court.
Another strange allegation comes from a college student who joined Facebook in 2005 back when it was for college students only. Somehow she is shocked that Facebook is now open to anyone--a change that Facebook made with great fanfare in 2006. If she's so unhappy about the change, why doesn't she just close her account?
Santa Clara University Law Professor Eric Goldman told me that he considers the complaint to be "a jumbled mess." "There is a style of complaint that lists every single possible gripe you have with a company," he said. "This one listed all sorts of random gripes about Facebook including insignificant items like their acquisition of FriendFeed." He added, "lawyers sometimes do that, hoping that if you throw those against the wall, the judge will find something that sticks."
This post is adopted from a post that first appeared on my site, SafeKids.com.
Larry Magid is a technology journalist and an Internet safety advocate. He's been writing and speaking about Internet safety since he wrote Internet safety guide "Child Safety on the Information Highway" in 1994. He is co-director of ConnectSafely.org, founder of SafeKids.com and SafeTeens.com, and a board member of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children. Larry's technology analysis and commentary can be heard on CBS News and CBS affiliates, and read on CBSNews.com. He also writes a personal-tech column for the San Jose Mercury News. You can e-mail Larry or follow him on Twitter @larrymagid. 
Lets charge the parents with child endangerment.
And why wouldn't they? The victicrats have them convinced they're "entitled".
I think this particular article puts into perspective how much the concern for privacy lays in the hands of those that tend to complain about it. I am not a fan of Facebook, but I cannot fault them when a user is foolish enough to disclose where they live, and later post status messages insinuating they are away from their home, later to discover they've been robbed. The possibilities of crime aided by social networking sites are unlimited, but users should understand that a majority of control is in their hands. What's not in our control is the issue for the justice system.
Have you ever tried closing a Facebook account? It's like AOL back in the day - so aggravating it's easier to just put up with it.
That said, I still do have some issue with the service, which I use myself. First, it seems odd that Facebook recommends friends to me that have no mutual friends with me and do not even live in the same country. I do know these people, and the only reasonable way Facebook would know this is because we have exchanged e-mails. While initially I did let Facebook look through my e-mail address book, I did not expect Facebook to continue to look through it ad infinitum. Secondly, the Facebook ads I see are VERY specific. Facebook is obviously carefully monitoring my Google usage, amongst other things. Neither of these things would lead me to a class-action lawsuit. In fact, I could have predicted they would happen when I signed up for a Facebook account. If people expect images and information they put on the Internet to only be seen and used by their family and friends, they are sadly mistaken. The best way to protect one's privacy online is to keep one's personal information offline.
Click deactivate account.
Oh yeah, real difficult. Why can't they just read our minds when we want the account closed? Why do they make us click on two buttons? It's ridiculous!
The other problem with Facebook is that you can open up your privacy unwittingly by accepting all those stupid applications and such -- just "share a beer" kind of applications allow the provide of the application all sorts of account information that they shouldn't need.
A similar issue is with the Wall where a lot of people don't understand that often all their friends can see all their other friends comments on their walls. And to change the privacy settings is not all that clear -- there are lots of settings that are not easy to understand unless you understand the whole framework of the site, which many people do not.
Social networking sites naturally have a conflict of interest regarding privacy -- their success is based on creating a network of people, so it does things like suggesting friends and such, which strictly speaking are not sound privacy practices.
Difficult??....that's BS. Facebook's FAQ page clearly shows how to easily delete an account. Login and click "here", verify that you want to delete, click Submit...account is automatically deactivated then deleted in 14 days. Yeah, the hard part might be waiting but the account and all information is inaccessible during that time.
http://www.facebook.com/help/search.php?hq=how+to+delete+my+account+permanently&ref=hq
I totally understand what you're saying and it is true that Facebook's privacy policies have been confusing and keep changing (they say to make them clearer). Also, the company is changing it privacy settings to make it simpler. They're testing them now and rolling out the changes over time.
Larry Magid
http://www.facebook.com/help/search.php?hq=how+to+delete+my+account+permanently&ref=hq
God forbid anybody ever tried reading the Help page.
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/07/16/facebook-privacy-commissioner.html
In the end if someone really really wants to share "personal" information with their friends, then call them.
- by garrisonaw August 20, 2009 4:34 PM PDT
- Plain and simple, parents have no business letting an 11 year old do ANYTHING online without direct supervision. Children are curious, mischievous and deceitful by nature, so they will do whatever they can get away with. And if that means lying about their age, they'll do it. Ever heard of using fake ID's to buy alchohol underage?
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(27 Comments)When a child that young is allowed to do that much online, the responsibility lies with the parents, not the courts. Parents need to take an honest interest in their children's lives and teach them what is acceptable and what is not. Too many parents for too long have purchased electronic babysitters for their children - first televisions, then video games, and now computers - instead of taking time out of their busy schedule to actually be parents. And then when things go awry, they accuse the system of not protecting their children, instead of taking responsibility for their children's actions.
I agree with K_rod - cases like these should be thrown out before they ever reach this level. The courts should be holding parents responsible instead of the other way around.