Privacy Groups File FTC Complaint Against New Facebook Privacy Settings
Facebook’s new privacy settings constitute unfair and deceptive acts and practices that go against what the company has previously promised users regarding control over what information to share, 10 privacy groups said in a complaint filed Thursday with the FTC. The complaint, led by the Electronic Privacy Information Center, asks the commission to require Facebook to restore the previous privacy settings that allowed users to control whether to disclose their hometowns and friends and to “fully opt out” of giving information to third-party developers. It also wants Facebook “to make its data collection practices clearer and more comprehensible and to give Facebook users meaningful control over personal information provided by Facebook to advertisers and developers."
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
A Facebook spokesman said the company was disappointed that the groups chose to go to the FTC without first discussing their complaints with the social network. Facebook spoke with regulators including the FTC before announcing the changes, he said (WID Dec 10 p9). “Facebook’s plan to provide users control over their privacy and how they share content is unprecedented in the Internet age. … We're pleased that so many users have already gone through the process of reviewing and updating their privacy settings and are impressed that so many have chosen to customize their settings, demonstrating the effectiveness of Facebook’s user empowerment and transparency efforts.” The new privacy settings give users more power over individual posts, the spokesman said: Users can create privacy settings for each photo, link and status update.
Mark Rotenberg, EPIC’s executive director, said the changes “turn down the privacy dial” on 100 million people in the U.S. “This is the most significant case now before the Federal Trade Commission,” he said. Jeff Chester, the executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy, another complainant, said Facebook failed to act responsibly. “It cannot be permitted to deliberately weaken the control its users have over their information, just because it may boost its bottom line."
The complaint says that Facebook has touted the control it gives users. Chief Privacy Officer Chris Kelly testified to Congress that users have “extensive and precise controls” and can choose what information is available to search engines, the complaint said. Control is important because users might be fans of controversial political causes, have family members in countries like Iran who could be targeted based on the Facebook user’s political comments, or be identifiable as gay based on a friends list, the complaint said. Yet the new settings allow for disclosures and use of information “in ways and for purposes other than those consented to or relied upon,” the complaint said. Even though Facebook has in the past said its users might not want “everyone in the world” to know certain things, the changes mean that “publicly available information,” essentially available to everyone in the world, now includes names, profile photos, friends lists, pages, gender, geographic regions and networks, the complaint said. “Facebook’s representations regarding its changes to users’ privacy settings and associated policies are misleading and fail to provide users clear and necessary privacy protections,” it said.
Although EPIC has some valid concerns, getting the FTC to “fix” the problem isn’t the solution, said Berin Szoka of the Progress & Freedom Foundation. Much of the complaint details the disapproval of bloggers, Facebook users, columnists and others that followed the changes, he said, yet those complaints actually highlight his point that the market will guide Facebook better than the FTC. If people do quit the network, as some of the editorials and columns suggested, then Facebook will lose out, he said. Already it has responded to early complaints by allowing people to hide from public view their friends list, he said (WID Dec 14 p9). Designing user interfaces is difficult work and essentially defines the differences between a Friendster, a MySpace and a Facebook, Szoka said. The FTC shouldn’t be in the business of dictating a social network’s user interface, he said. If Facebook were to be instructed to return to the old controls, it would be difficult for the company to continue to evolve, he said.
Increased granularity of some controls is positive, Szoka said. “The key is to strike that balance between granularity of control and the benefits of sharing information.” But he thinks EPIC’s concerns about what’s now considered publicly available information are misplaced. There are some valid concerns, such as those people who have Iranian relatives, he said. It’s also true that some people might not want others to realize they're gay by looking at their friends list, he said, but “the mere possibility that somebody could figure something out isn’t the same thing as broadcasting it.” In both cases, concerns can be dealt with by hiding friends lists, he said.