• On GameSpot: Thinking about buying an Xbox 360?
February 20, 2009 11:00 AM PST

Week in review: Facebook's about-face

by Steven Musil
  • Font size
  • Print
  • 7 comments

Facebook users take their privacy very seriously--and the social-networking site received that message loud and clear.

Facebook created a firestorm of controversy earlier this week as word spread that it had changed a longstanding but little-publicized claim to an "irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license" for promotional efforts--which would no longer expire if a member deleted his or her Facebook account.

Facebook reorganized its terms of service on February 11. In a blog post, company legal representative Suzie White provided an explanation. "We used to have several different documents that outlined what people could and could not do on Facebook, but now we're consolidating all this information to one central place," White wrote. "We've also simplified and clarified a lot of information that applies to you, including some things you shouldn't do when using the site."

The blog post sounded benign. But the brouhaha arose on Sunday. Blogs declared the change a cause for alarm. Protest groups sprang up on the social-networking site, with more than 100,000 users joining one such group.

Privacy advocacy group Electronic Privacy Information Center was threatening to file a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission, demanding that the massively popular social-networking service return to its previous policies.

To get an idea how its users felt about the changes, Facebook began a poll in its users' News Feeds, asking them their opinion on the TOS change. And an overwhelming majority favored returning to its previous terms of service.

Facing a revolt of tens of thousands of its users, Facebook quickly announced that it was returning to its previous terms.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced the reversal in a blog post late Tuesday:

Many of us at Facebook spent most of today discussing how best to move forward. One approach would have been to quickly amend the new terms with new language to clarify our positions further. Another approach was simply to revert to our old terms while we begin working on our next version. As we thought through this, we reached out to respected organizations to get their input.

Going forward, we've decided to take a new approach towards developing our terms. We concluded that returning to our previous terms was the right thing for now. As I said yesterday, we think that a lot of the language in our terms is overly formal and protective so we don't plan to leave it there for long.

Zuckerberg also said that the company would be adopting a new set of terms that would more carefully take users' rights into consideration.

Washington taps tech
President Obama signed into law a $787 billion stimulus package that includes $7.2 billion for broadband grant and loan programs. The bulk of the funds directed at broadband--$4.7 billion--will be distributed through a program run by the Commerce Department, while $2.5 billion will fall under the jurisdiction of the Agriculture Department, giving particular emphasis to broadband deployment in rural areas.

The Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and Information Administration's "Broadband Technology Opportunities Program" is intended to "award competitive grants to accelerate broadband deployment in unserved and underserved areas and to strategic institutions that are likely to create jobs or provide significant public benefits," the bill says. However, no part of the bill, however, defines the terms "broadband," "unserved area," or "underserved area."

In conjunction with the stimulus package, the White House launched Recovery.gov, a site that intends to bring transparency to the government spending. The site includes charts that break down how the money in the legislation will be distributed.

As federal agencies distribute funds, those allocations will be added to the site. A map of the country shows the number of jobs the legislation is expected to create in each state. The site also has a separate page explaining the president's call for transparency, as well as an "about" page that summarizes the bill and provides a timeline of its progress.

However, that transparency was quickly called into question when it was learned that the site was using a robots.txt file to block all requests by search engines that would ordinarily download and index each page to make the information more accessible to the Web-searching public.

Although the White House Web team did not immediately respond to a request for comment, the single-line comment at the top of the file disappeared about three hours after it was brought to the attention of CNET readers.

Meanwhile, more than 28,000 consumers called a federal help line Tuesday, after hundreds of television stations dropped their analog signals.

Even though the national deadline for television stations to switch from analog to digital broadcasting has been pushed back to June, 421 stations made the transition Tuesday, the date of the original deadline. The changeover prompted 28,315 people to call the Federal Communications Commission's DTV transition help line.

The number of calls Tuesday was 37 percent higher than on Monday, when 20,673 people called for help. However, most of the 421 stations that transitioned to digital broadcasting Tuesday did not do so until midnight, so the calls did not represent the full impact of the switchover. From midnight through 11 a.m. Wednesday, the FCC received 6,750 calls for help.

Tech goes to court
The landmark copyright-infringement trial against The Pirate Bay got under way in Sweden this week. The four men behind the popular file-sharing site are accused of helping millions of Internet users illegally download protected movies, music, and computer games. They face up to two years in prison and a fine of 1.2 million kronor ($143,529) if convicted of being accessories and of conspiracy to break Swedish copyright law.

A civil claim brought by a group of media giants is also being heard with the prosecution. The plaintiffs--Warner Bros. Entertainment, MGM Pictures, Columbia Pictures Industries, 20th Century Fox Films, Sony BMG, Universal, and EMI--seek 120 million kronor ($14.3 million) in compensation for lost revenue.

However, on the first day of the long-awaited criminal trial, Swedish prosecutors unexpectedly dropped half the charges against the site's operators. The amended charges focus on the act of making the material available.

"It's a largely technical issue that changes nothing in terms of our compensation claims and has no bearing whatsoever on the main case against The Pirate Bay. In fact, it simplifies the prosecutor's case by allowing him to focus on the main issue, which is the making available of copyrighted works."

A couple in Pittsburgh who sued Google claiming that its Street View feature is a reckless invasion of their privacy have lost their case. Aaron and Christine Boring sued the Internet search giant in April, alleging that Google "significantly disregarded (their) privacy interests" when Street View cameras captured images of their house beyond signs marked "private road."

However, the U.S. District Court for Western Pennsylvania wasn't impressed by the suit and dismissed it (PDF), saying the Borings "failed to state a claim under any count."

Also of note
Verizon will begin testing 4G service this year and launch it commercially in at least 25 to 30 markets in the U.S. in 2010, CTO Dick Lynch said during an interview with CNET News at the 2009 GSMA Mobile World Congress in Barcelona...Fresh from removing content from TV.com, Hulu has now requested that Boxee, the maker of media-center software, stop making Hulu's videos available...A new service lets cell phone users unmask the Caller ID on anonymous calls.

Steven Musil is the night news editor at CNET News. Before joining CNET News in 2000, Steven spent 10 years at various Bay Area newspapers. E-mail Steven.
Recent posts from Business Tech
Forrester: 5 keys for application development in 2010
Firefox development dilemma: Tweak or overhaul?
Zimbra buy to raise VMware's cloud ante
Big hurdles for rumored Nvidia x86 technology
Acer Aspire Netbook sports new Atom chip
Nokia: We will match Apple, RIM
Venture-backed companies see year-end surge
Chrome passes Safari in browser usage
Add a Comment (Log in or register) (7 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
by Angry CPU February 20, 2009 12:08 PM PST
I's sad when money, power and greed tarnishes a great concept. I'm glad for once people are taking a stand.
Reply to this comment
by MichaelStover February 20, 2009 6:12 PM PST
apparently the author of the article on facebook has no clue about what the actual privacy changes were (never specified) and neither did most of those "complaining". if complaining means joining a facebook cause, well what a catch 22 lose-lose for facebook. burnt by its own sword. the easy to join and carefree feeling of joining stabbed them right in the back - we've all joined causes with little thought. add the conspiracy theme of privacy and of course it would warrant 100K to join at the very least.
Reply to this comment
by wintory February 21, 2009 12:44 AM PST
How on earth did a facebook icon end up on my BlackBerry?????? I sure didn't put it there.
Reply to this comment
by Fil0403 February 21, 2009 7:38 AM PST
I hope this fabulous trend of changing the terms os service after people signed up under different terms of service doesn't catch on.
Reply to this comment
by royc February 22, 2009 8:44 PM PST
All the sites have the same type of thing in their TOS. Even my cell phone has a phone book size TOS that is bigger than the operating manual and the manual is in 8 languages. The manual has at least 1/2 page telling you what each button does, including the numbers that 5 pages right there and the green button has 2 1/2 pages and red button has 8 pages because it disconnect the call and turns the phone on and even turns the phone off. Why would they want you to be able to turn it off I don't know but it is there.
by royc February 22, 2009 8:27 PM PST
I guess now would be a good time to change all of your pix to anything, like someone suggested last week, that of mr. Z. eating a banana. And all your text files to "now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country 0123456789". Then delete your account. Next week create a new account and be very careful what you do with it, cuz mr. Z. said they will be changing the TOS very soon. And I think it will NOT be Ms. White that will be telling us about it. She has her a$$ in a sling and when she gets it out she will be looking for a new job.
Reply to this comment
by Mikebanks February 26, 2009 12:12 PM PST
Steven,
For those of us who've been out plowing February fields, writing books, changing oil, or whatever, you really should have laid out a quick overview of what the offending Term of Service was. From the line you quoted one may infer that Facebook was claiming all rights to any member's efforts at promoting a product or service in perpetuity, and throughout the known (and unknown) universe--and possibiliy retroactive all the way back to and including 1776--but it's not quite clear.
--Mike On the Way to the Web
Reply to this comment
(7 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
advertisement

Five New Year's resolutions for Google

Stakes are high as Google attempts to maintain one of the Internet's greatest cash machines while pushing into new and risky markets.
• Android event set for Jan. 5

For eBay sellers, a holiday hamster hangover

The gift frenzy over Zhu Zhu Pets leaves some power sellers feeling like they've just run a marathon--but the steep price tags lead to some impressive profits.

About Business Tech

Your destination for the latest news on enterprise-level information technology, from chip research and server design to software issues including programming, open source and patents.

Add this feed to your online news reader

Business Tech topics

advertisement
advertisement

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right