Facebook's changes to its data ownership policies have created an uproar in some quarters. Essentially, the company has said, once you load data on their servers, it's their data. All Facebook has done is to change its terms and conditions to reflect technical reality, monetary reality, and plain old reality. And I say more power to them and to Mark Zuckerberg for standing behind the change.
First let's look at technical reality. Facebook makes backups all the time (at least I hope it does) and it has data on more than one server. Is it technically even feasible for them to delete all your data? That would mean deleting the data of each server that ever had the data; deleting the data off each backup medium that ever had the data; and scrubbing the media to ensure that the deleted data can't be recovered. Oh sure, I think Facebook should do that for us. Every time somebody deletes a photo, an email, or an entire account -- Facebook should make all digital record of this go away. Folks, that's not realistic, and kudos to Facebook for stating the technical reality of social media.
Next consider the monetary issues. Facebook is in business to make money while helping people connect. It's not focused on people connecting for free -- it's a business in search of revenue. Now, according to its terms and conditions, it "may use information in your profile without identifying you as an individual to third parties." If Facebook identifies you personally, then it should burn in the hell known as public and media outrage. But summary data: There's gold in them thar hills. Just one example: Research companies administer millions of surveys each year to find out what people like and don’t like. Facebook has all that data and more! Selling that summary-level data would pay for a lot of servers and a lot of shareholder happiness. I don't know what Facebook's plans are with regard to this data -- but I know they want to make money!
More important than technical and monetary reality is just plain old reality -- physical, real-world reality. The data has been posted on a Website. One of your Facebook friends could have done a screen capture of the data; they could have copied the data and pasted it into other documents, or, heck, they could have hired monks in Tibet to transcribe the data. If you suddenly become famous and delete your page, data may still be in the browser cache on their PC. The genie is out of the bottle. You made the data public -- you have no control over what other people do with that data. Facebook cannot be expected to block all the people who viewed your data from abusing that data!
There is a solution if you are concerned about the privacy of your data -- don’t make it public! Social media is fun. It offers a great way to make connections -- but it comes with risks! Borrowing liberally from an old bumper sticker, Facebook does not post embarrassing information... people do.
— David Silversmith, Internet and Web analytics consultant, and former CTO of Carfax
This blog is part of Internet Evolution’s IT Clan, which addresses the continuing impact of the Internet on enterprise networks, applications, and management. Register here to join the IT Clan’s conversation, and you just might win something unspeakably cool.
We all knew well in advance that Facebook had to and always did use Users Private data for its own purposes,what was the need for them to come out in the open about the whole thing?
It unneccesarily creates negative feedback for the company.Everything David says here is absolutely right,you should'nt blame others for your Personal actions of putting all yoru Personal Data online in the first place.Its stupidity and especially since nowadays Employers (existing as well as Prospective) monitor Social Networks for indiscretions from Employees.
So its your decision and your Decision only.
But its good that Privacy Advocates and the Over 25 crowd is creating such a fuss now,it will put a few roadblacks in Facebooks path as they look for ways to monetize all this valuable User Data.But for the Under 25 and especially the Under 15 generation its no real big deal that all their most intimate,private moments are online.Maybe perceptions will change with time .
In the meantime we have to Wake up and live upto it.
Well, it seems that Facebook is trying to set up a 2-sided market model. In that particular model, a firm acts as an intermediator between interested parties. Data can be sold as is (with some sort of manipulation to hide user identifying information, maybe) or it can be "offered" on some fee to adv. firms for better targetted ad campaigns. The possibilities are obviously endless.
Examples of two sided markets are auction platforms (ie ebay), stock exchanges etc. Even services hubs can be considered as a two-sided markets (ie airports).
Analogous models are also applied by traditional press. Newspapers are sold well below their real/actual cost in order to achieve a critical mass of subscribers, thus, making it attractive to commercial firms to advertise inside their pages.
The ethics behind such use of data is an issue for discussion, but I agree with the author that as soon as you place your data in the internet, it stops being private! Even worse, they can be stored in caches for years! (I still can find in google search emails I sent 15-20 years ago!)
Leaked numbers show that Facebook is not making all that much money from advertising. Estimates are around 180 million in ad revenue or about 15 million a month. Not chump change but the majority of that is tied to two deals with Microsoft where and it is doubtful that Micrsoft will pony up that much money in the future.
Also the growth from 2007 to 2008 was only 30 million. Again, not chump change but when you consider their time on site growth and visitor growth not to good. Facebook gets a lot of traffic - but a lot of it is underage traffic - folks who don't have credit cards to buy online. So they are not able to charge top dollar for the ads they sell.
What is also great about Facebook capitialism is that advertisers themselves can maek money as well. Yes, Facebook makes money by selling advetising space, but also the places the advetise there will reap benefits if they advertise well. So, it is not just Facebook.
Web 2.0 is a big business , but american people are among the foirst nation that understood is business earlier .
FACEBOOK showinghight marketing , today i read on TWITTER that facebook is allowing user to make money on it's platform , that's why i ask who will follow facebook on it's innovation ?
Facebook is making millions of dollar per months from advertising , they feel that's not bad to share revenues with users .
Thanks to the current economic state, breath taking web2.0 companies no longer should be the target of profits(MONETIZE)...as business entities in GENERAL..wait (local governments too?) are struggling to stay an inch above water.
As we pull out of this recession/modern day depression, well positioned web2.0 companies are going to stuff dingy socks in many of those naysayer's yappers. I personally cannot wait to see that in action.
Money, Money, Money - Web 2.0 gotta make some of this in 2009. Matthrew Igram's blog on "YouTube experimenting with download fees" has a great discussion on this.
I think there are ways. What if facebook charged 1 dollar a month - 12 bucks a year for an account. Given their number of users - even if half dropped out - or dropped to a level with less features - that is still a lot of cash to collect.
Also a lot of teenagers begging parents to use their credit card for online payment - but that's for another blog...
In both the old (now the current) and the briefly posted guidelines they are always committed to protecting your privacy.
Could they use one of your crowd photos and sell it as a stock photo - maybe, interesting question.
Could they use your name, birthday, phone number - no and I think they know that would be a pretty bad business model.
Could they use your information in summary data - X number of people in this ZIP are fans of Bruce Springsteen - yes. How many people belong to music facebook groups. How many people belong to book club facebook groups.
I think that Facebook has felt the backlash of a poor announcement - but I continue to feel that it is a free service that folks are choosing to use. You are providing eyeballs to look at ads and summary level data - if not for that somebody needs to start paying $$$ to Facebook.
I'm not sure what content on Facebook that I post would be worth fighting over, but I'd be a little pissed (after being flattered) if they sold one of my photos or quoted me and didn't pay any royalties...I know...that would never happen, but what if you saw an ad like this: Pay $20/month subscription fee for full access to the Facebook universe which includes everyone's name, birthday, address, and headshot and any messages they ever posted. That would suck.
The ThinkerNet does not reflect the views of TechWeb. The ThinkerNet is an informal means of communication to members and visitors of the Internet Evolution site. Individual authors are chosen by Internet Evolution to blog. Neither Internet Evolution nor TechWeb assume responsibility for comments, claims, or opinions made by authors and ThinkerNet bloggers. They are no substitute for your own research and should not be relied upon for trading or any other purpose.
Web 2.0 has created numerous scenarios in which enterprise IT policies are at odds with social media. But we are seeing the early signs that the social media vendors have realized that a new focus is required to sustain businesses as customers.
For many marketers, much of the early excitement about the Internet came from the prospect of being able to track everything they wanted to know about their customers. This was particularly important during the first Internet Bubble in the late 1990s, when visitors, more than revenue, were key to so many business plans.
Every IT manager has had one of those late nights -- a server crashes, a software update goes haywire, an installation of a new product takes several hours longer than planned. We've all been there. But with new CRM technology from Microsoft, you might be greeted next morning by multiple vendors proposing new solutions for you.
There are people who are so concerned about their privacy and their anonymity that they want to remain completely anonymous online, yet they still want to take advantage of what the Internet has to offer. Is that possible?
While Google introduces its new Chrome OS (which I'm hearing will be widely available in one year? Did I mishear that?), IBM announced 10 new products today to help companies using IBM System z mainframe technology.
Smarter Collaboration: How to Thrive in a Challenging Business Environment Market conditions are changing faster than ever, and organizations need to improve their agility and adaptability in order to provide better service and improve processes. The ability to work with customers, business partners, and employees as effectively as possible - while at the same time holding down costs - is a key to success. READ THIS eBOOK
your weekly update of news, analysis, and
opinion from Internet Evolution - FREE! REGISTER HERE
Wanted! Site Moderators Internet Evolution is looking for a handful of readers to help moderate the message boards on our site – as well as engaging in high-IQ conversation with the industry mavens on our thinkerNet blogosphere. The job comes with various perks, bags of kudos, and GIANT bragging rights. Interested?
To save this item to your list of favorite Internet Evolution content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
What can users today do to protect their online privacy? The simplest and most obvious option is to not use the Internet – at all. However, once all digital information is consolidated over the Internet, trying to protect digital identity by simply unplugging from the Internet becomes impossible – a fact that has manifest implications for civil liberties, Saunders says.
By 2011 the number of Internet-connected sensors will exceed 1 trillion, making your chances of doing anything or going anywhere unnoticed pretty much zero. Saunders talks about how the 'sensortization' of the Internet is eliminating the traditional divide between online and offline populations.
The 20th Century Internet was characterized by the ability to interact with other people and information on the Internet largely without anyone knowing who you were. The Internet of this century, conversely, will be defined by identity. Saunders explains how Internet users are unwittingly contributing to the demise of the anonymous Internet.
Steve Saunders talks about the risks inherent in uncontrolled, widespread profiling of Internet users, and how one day this practice could form the basis of a new industry, the Outernet, which in economic terms will have outgrown the commercial value of the Internet itself.
Search companies and social networks are collecting incredibly detailed information about their users, says Steve Saunders, who predicts that these 'profiles' could one day become commodities to be bought and sold by companies on 'profile markets' or 'identity exchanges’ – the digital DNA equivalents of the financial and commodities exchanges on which stocks, oil, and gold are traded.
One of the most important Internet issues of all time is being ignored by the media. In this three-part video series Steve Saunders explains how search companies are turning the tables on their users by creating user profiles for financial gain, and how soon this trend will explode into full scale profiling.
More companies are trolling social networks to find and vet potential job candidates. Beware the pitfalls of blurring the line between personal and professional lives.
It is 20 years since the invention of the World Wide Web, and the Internet has changed beyond recognition since then. Steve Saunders peers into the future to predict what the Web will look like in another 20 years time – and he doesn’t like what he sees.
When Reiter gets incensed over incompetent Verizon FiOS order-taking and support, he broadcasts it via Twitter. Did it do any good? How should your company offer Twitter support? Watch this for all the answers.
Industry initiatives and government stimulus funds are giving enterprise software vendors a great opportunity to help build out and manage smart grid technologies.
The problem with telepresence is that it's not universally accepted, because video calling isn't. While we can all do video calling, we also apparently worry too much about how we look. If we want HD telepresence in our future, we have to dress down, mess up our hair, and dive into our online life.
The US loses about $20 billion a year on pirated software, movies, and music. But public policy can help stem the tide of digital theft. For example, France has recently passed a 'three strikes and you’re out' law, whereby if after two warning letters an individual continues to download pirated software then his Internet access will be cut off. US policy makers should consider adopting similar policies.
Financial management planning does not need to include Voodoo economics, but it does help to tap into the knowledge base of your team through some sort of real-time system. We explore your options.
When Reiter gets incensed over incompetent Verizon FiOS order-taking and support, he broadcasts it via Twitter. Did it do any good? How should your company offer Twitter support? Watch this for all the answers.
The successor to the BlackBerry Bold 9000 – the Bold 9700 – will be available soon in the US. Is it worth upgrading? Reiter's got one, and offers advice.
Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Email This
TWEET THIS
