Comments on: Facebook’s New Ad Platform Illegal? http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/08/facebooks-new-ad-platform-illegal/ Startup and Technology News Mon, 07 Jul 2008 02:24:09 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: meetingflex.com http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/08/facebooks-new-ad-platform-illegal/#comment-1746365 meetingflex.com Sat, 10 Nov 2007 16:25:38 +0000 http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/08/facebooks-new-ad-platform-illegal/#comment-1746365 I was wondering. http://www.meetingflex.com I was wondering.

http://www.meetingflex.com

]]> By: Stu http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/08/facebooks-new-ad-platform-illegal/#comment-1746141 Stu Sat, 10 Nov 2007 14:21:07 +0000 http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/08/facebooks-new-ad-platform-illegal/#comment-1746141 I think opt-out is a bad way to implement it, but I will vote with my time. I am trying to migrate my friends to Ning where we can set-up our own site. Most of us are willing to pay something, it is just a matter of having the time to repost our profile data. Dwayne: If you take that stance about "a blog" then you have to consider that is not just "a blog". As MA's decision not to attend the Blogworld indicates, this blog network no longer needs to associate with small little blogs that struggle for income. Originally, blogs were seen as alternatives to MSM, but now many of them have been successful enough to hold accountable to higher standards of journalism (like typos). One cannot have it both ways. "We become what we seek to displace" I think opt-out is a bad way to implement it, but I will vote with my time. I am trying to migrate my friends to Ning where we can set-up our own site. Most of us are willing to pay something, it is just a matter of having the time to repost our profile data.

Dwayne: If you take that stance about “a blog” then you have to consider that is not just “a blog”. As MA’s decision not to attend the Blogworld indicates, this blog network no longer needs to associate with small little blogs that struggle for income. Originally, blogs were seen as alternatives to MSM, but now many of them have been successful enough to hold accountable to higher standards of journalism (like typos). One cannot have it both ways. “We become what we seek to displace”

]]> By: Dwayne http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/08/facebooks-new-ad-platform-illegal/#comment-1745806 Dwayne Sat, 10 Nov 2007 11:27:43 +0000 http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/08/facebooks-new-ad-platform-illegal/#comment-1745806 It's perfectly acceptable what facebook is doing, I see nothing wrong with it personally. As for the spelling and grammar remarks earlier, I don't think calling a blog unprofessional is exactly a useful comment. It's more of a typo, not a spelling error. To, Too they both sound the same anyway. It’s perfectly acceptable what facebook is doing, I see nothing wrong with it personally. As for the spelling and grammar remarks earlier, I don’t think calling a blog unprofessional is exactly a useful comment. It’s more of a typo, not a spelling error. To, Too they both sound the same anyway.

]]> By: Natasha http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/08/facebooks-new-ad-platform-illegal/#comment-1744268 Natasha Fri, 09 Nov 2007 23:54:49 +0000 http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/08/facebooks-new-ad-platform-illegal/#comment-1744268 I dont see what is wrong with them, the law seem silly. I dont see what is wrong with them, the law seem silly.

]]> By: FaceWeek.com http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/08/facebooks-new-ad-platform-illegal/#comment-1743633 FaceWeek.com Fri, 09 Nov 2007 20:08:46 +0000 http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/08/facebooks-new-ad-platform-illegal/#comment-1743633 No, it's not going to be considered illegal I would guess. No, it’s not going to be considered illegal I would guess.

]]> By: Big Bopper http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/08/facebooks-new-ad-platform-illegal/#comment-1743579 Big Bopper Fri, 09 Nov 2007 19:45:38 +0000 http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/08/facebooks-new-ad-platform-illegal/#comment-1743579 for those preaching that the answer to not liking an aspect of a service is not to use it...if only it were that simple. it is a bit like saying, "don't like car crashes? stop driving!" whereas the more reasonable reality is, we've made the car companies put in seat belts. facebook, like many pieces of software, is rather complex. there are a *bunch* of settings and it takes a careful, methodic approach to ensure that everything is tweaked to your personal privacy tolerance threshold. while i agree that facebook is a business and doesn't have to apologize for turning a buck, i do not agree that they can mislead people as they go about doing so. their pitch boils down to 'clean, well-lit place for you and your friends to socialize, share, and discover stuff'. that's good as far as it goes but, like myspace, they've done an absurdly awful job of warning folks of the risks of use and offering ways to mitigate that risk. in other words, where are the social-networking seat belts? there is an expectation in the marketplace that a $15B company will conduct itself with the grace and composure befitting its status. otherwise it will likely cease to be a $15B company. are you listening mark? for those preaching that the answer to not liking an aspect of a service is not to use it…if only it were that simple. it is a bit like saying, “don’t like car crashes? stop driving!” whereas the more reasonable reality is, we’ve made the car companies put in seat belts.

facebook, like many pieces of software, is rather complex. there are a *bunch* of settings and it takes a careful, methodic approach to ensure that everything is tweaked to your personal privacy tolerance threshold. while i agree that facebook is a business and doesn’t have to apologize for turning a buck, i do not agree that they can mislead people as they go about doing so. their pitch boils down to ‘clean, well-lit place for you and your friends to socialize, share, and discover stuff’. that’s good as far as it goes but, like myspace, they’ve done an absurdly awful job of warning folks of the risks of use and offering ways to mitigate that risk. in other words, where are the social-networking seat belts?

there is an expectation in the marketplace that a $15B company will conduct itself with the grace and composure befitting its status. otherwise it will likely cease to be a $15B company. are you listening mark?

]]> By: Virgin Mobile (rb) http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/08/facebooks-new-ad-platform-illegal/#comment-1743543 Virgin Mobile (rb) Fri, 09 Nov 2007 19:30:20 +0000 http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/08/facebooks-new-ad-platform-illegal/#comment-1743543 Read this http://www.webguild.org/2007/11/facebook-ads-could-be-illegal-cost.html Read this http://www.webguild.org/2007/1.....-cost.html

]]> By: Robert Liebsch http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/08/facebooks-new-ad-platform-illegal/#comment-1743435 Robert Liebsch Fri, 09 Nov 2007 18:38:38 +0000 http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/08/facebooks-new-ad-platform-illegal/#comment-1743435 This is interesting "Facebook say that it would be difficult for someone used in these ads to argue against the use given they will have already identified themselves publicly, implying consent." when taken in light with "... any expectation of privacy can be waived [citing case holding that a privacy disclaimer on a bulletin board "defeats claims to an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy."] Many employees are provided with e-mail and Internet services by their employers. Often, those employees are required to waive any expectation of privacy in their email each time they log on to their computers. [Court] orders directed to the email of employees who have waived any possible expectation of privacy do not violate the Fourth Amendment." and "he terms of service (TOS) of many ISPs permit those ISPs to monitor user activities to prevent fraud, enforce the TOS, or protect the ISP or others, or to comply with legal process. If you use an ISP and the ISP may monitor what you do, then you have waived any and all constitutional privacy rights in any communications or other use of the ISP. For example, the government notes with respect to Yahoo! (which has similar TOS):" The last two quotes come from: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/04/4th-amendment_email_privacy/ regarding: On October 8, 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati granted the government's request for a full-panel hearing in United States v. Warshak case centering on the right of privacy for stored electronic communications Think it is related? Personally, I don't have any reasonable expectation of privacy on the InterWebs or on Cell phone, or any public place. I do have it in my home with the curtains and windows closed. I'm not crying victim, but we haven't privacy anymore. It isn't 1800's America. A great deal of us don't have back yards. Hell, many of us don't have 3 inches between our homes and our neighbors home... This is interesting
“Facebook say that it would be difficult for someone used in these ads to argue against the use given they will have already identified themselves publicly, implying consent.”
when taken in light with
“… any expectation of privacy can be waived [citing case holding that a privacy disclaimer on a bulletin board "defeats claims to an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy."] Many employees are provided with e-mail and Internet services by their employers. Often, those employees are required to waive any expectation of privacy in their email each time they log on to their computers. [Court] orders directed to the email of employees who have waived any possible expectation of privacy do not violate the Fourth Amendment.”
and
“he terms of service (TOS) of many ISPs permit those ISPs to monitor user activities to prevent fraud, enforce the TOS, or protect the ISP or others, or to comply with legal process. If you use an ISP and the ISP may monitor what you do, then you have waived any and all constitutional privacy rights in any communications or other use of the ISP. For example, the government notes with respect to Yahoo! (which has similar TOS):”

The last two quotes come from:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2.....l_privacy/
regarding:
On October 8, 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati granted the government’s request for a full-panel hearing in United States v. Warshak case centering on the right of privacy for stored electronic communications

Think it is related?

Personally, I don’t have any reasonable expectation of privacy on the InterWebs or on Cell phone, or any public place. I do have it in my home with the curtains and windows closed.

I’m not crying victim, but we haven’t privacy anymore. It isn’t 1800’s America. A great deal of us don’t have back yards. Hell, many of us don’t have 3 inches between our homes and our neighbors home…

]]> By: David Mackey http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/08/facebooks-new-ad-platform-illegal/#comment-1743387 David Mackey Fri, 09 Nov 2007 18:20:06 +0000 http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/08/facebooks-new-ad-platform-illegal/#comment-1743387 Pahh. Come on, we gave them the data, they aren't giving away personally identifiable information. Why do we care? Pahh. Come on, we gave them the data, they aren’t giving away personally identifiable information. Why do we care?

]]> By: Jon http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/08/facebooks-new-ad-platform-illegal/#comment-1743317 Jon Fri, 09 Nov 2007 17:58:15 +0000 http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/08/facebooks-new-ad-platform-illegal/#comment-1743317 I don't know about NY, but I'm pretty sure this would be "illegal" in the E.U. I don’t know about NY, but I’m pretty sure this would be “illegal” in the E.U.

]]> By: Danno http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/08/facebooks-new-ad-platform-illegal/#comment-1743296 Danno Fri, 09 Nov 2007 17:53:27 +0000 http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/08/facebooks-new-ad-platform-illegal/#comment-1743296 BTW: They could have totally covered themselves if they have made this info-sharing an opt-in feature, as opposed to a cumbersome opt-out nightmare. BTW: They could have totally covered themselves if they have made this info-sharing an opt-in feature, as opposed to a cumbersome opt-out nightmare.

]]> By: Danno http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/08/facebooks-new-ad-platform-illegal/#comment-1743276 Danno Fri, 09 Nov 2007 17:46:40 +0000 http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/08/facebooks-new-ad-platform-illegal/#comment-1743276 @ Troy: Indeed! I'd NEVER have joined FB myself, if I knew that THIS was what they had up their sleeves... @ Troy: Indeed! I’d NEVER have joined FB myself, if I knew that THIS was what they had up their sleeves…

]]> By: Michael Gracie http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/08/facebooks-new-ad-platform-illegal/#comment-1743267 Michael Gracie Fri, 09 Nov 2007 17:43:37 +0000 http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/08/facebooks-new-ad-platform-illegal/#comment-1743267 <strong>My Facebook friend, the marketer...</strong> Facebook announced yesterday that all your friends are now your product recommendation specialists. Companies are going to set up shop inside the wonderous social network, and you (the users) are going to pitch their products for them. As the WSJ put... My Facebook friend, the marketer…

Facebook announced yesterday that all your friends are now your product recommendation specialists. Companies are going to set up shop inside the wonderous social network, and you (the users) are going to pitch their products for them. As the WSJ put…

]]> By: Troy Gilbert http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/08/facebooks-new-ad-platform-illegal/#comment-1743194 Troy Gilbert Fri, 09 Nov 2007 17:15:40 +0000 http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/08/facebooks-new-ad-platform-illegal/#comment-1743194 To all those that simply say, "if you don't like the way they use your data, just don't use the service," I have to say "yes, and no." I don't see any legal problems (or ethical or consumer rights) with what they're doing for those now joining the service. They know (or should know) what they're getting into. Its that they flipped a switch and turned it on for all the existing users who didn't have an expectation of this. The vast majority of Facebook's users are likely not following TechCrunch or various other tech media outlets and wouldn't have "seen this coming." They just would have arrived to their Facebook account the other day to see the pour of ads. That's the core complaint here, that's the privacy violation. Facebook may be legally in the clear (I'm sure they are considering their resources and liability exposure), but that certainly doesn't mean they're not being good corporate citizens by building a free social community and then flipping the switch to turn it into a targeted advertising platform. To all those that simply say, “if you don’t like the way they use your data, just don’t use the service,” I have to say “yes, and no.”

I don’t see any legal problems (or ethical or consumer rights) with what they’re doing for those now joining the service. They know (or should know) what they’re getting into.

Its that they flipped a switch and turned it on for all the existing users who didn’t have an expectation of this. The vast majority of Facebook’s users are likely not following TechCrunch or various other tech media outlets and wouldn’t have “seen this coming.” They just would have arrived to their Facebook account the other day to see the pour of ads. That’s the core complaint here, that’s the privacy violation.

Facebook may be legally in the clear (I’m sure they are considering their resources and liability exposure), but that certainly doesn’t mean they’re not being good corporate citizens by building a free social community and then flipping the switch to turn it into a targeted advertising platform.

]]> By: justin http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/08/facebooks-new-ad-platform-illegal/#comment-1743075 justin Fri, 09 Nov 2007 16:37:19 +0000 http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/08/facebooks-new-ad-platform-illegal/#comment-1743075 something to remember - AG Cuomo, the newly elected top law enforcement official in NY, is, much like his predecessor, quite aggressive. As their investigation into Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac reflects, they are willing to push the boundaries and work to create new law. I would not be surprised to see Cuomo weigh in on this with a subpoena first and potentially a lawsuit right behind it. something to remember - AG Cuomo, the newly elected top law enforcement official in NY, is, much like his predecessor, quite aggressive. As their investigation into Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac reflects, they are willing to push the boundaries and work to create new law. I would not be surprised to see Cuomo weigh in on this with a subpoena first and potentially a lawsuit right behind it.

]]> By: Grip http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/08/facebooks-new-ad-platform-illegal/#comment-1743003 Grip Fri, 09 Nov 2007 16:12:04 +0000 http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/08/facebooks-new-ad-platform-illegal/#comment-1743003 I used the new Facebook ad platform. The first day, my click through rate was .32, the second day my click through rate was .16 - I am beginning to wonder how fast burnout can occur when you're targeting a very specific demographic. I used the new Facebook ad platform.

The first day, my click through rate was .32, the second day my click through rate was .16 - I am beginning to wonder how fast burnout can occur when you’re targeting a very specific demographic.

]]> By: Pro-SEO http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/08/facebooks-new-ad-platform-illegal/#comment-1742989 Pro-SEO Fri, 09 Nov 2007 16:06:13 +0000 http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/08/facebooks-new-ad-platform-illegal/#comment-1742989 The law surely refers to using someones picture of voice within the advert, Doesn't it? The law surely refers to using someones picture of voice within the advert, Doesn’t it?

]]> By: jay http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/08/facebooks-new-ad-platform-illegal/#comment-1742935 jay Fri, 09 Nov 2007 15:44:40 +0000 http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/08/facebooks-new-ad-platform-illegal/#comment-1742935 easily countered by an addendum to the facebook terms of service. done and done. fb will probably sneak that into a list of checkbox preferences fifteen long: "allow this application to share my data for any purpose whatsoever" : ) easily countered by an addendum to the facebook terms of service. done and done.

fb will probably sneak that into a list of checkbox preferences fifteen long:

“allow this application to share my data for any purpose whatsoever”

: )

]]> By: meetingflex.com http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/08/facebooks-new-ad-platform-illegal/#comment-1742887 meetingflex.com Fri, 09 Nov 2007 15:16:39 +0000 http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/08/facebooks-new-ad-platform-illegal/#comment-1742887 u bet. :-) u bet. :-)

]]> By: Michael Wood http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/08/facebooks-new-ad-platform-illegal/#comment-1742876 Michael Wood Fri, 09 Nov 2007 15:11:18 +0000 http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/08/facebooks-new-ad-platform-illegal/#comment-1742876 Forget if they're legal - do they work?! I've had a client ad up for a couple of days and after 5000 impressions not one click-through! I accept the ad may not be the best but this clients ads do well on Adwords (and we did make some amendments for the Facebook vibe / audience). Also the Ad manager is awful... What are other peoples experiences? Forget if they’re legal - do they work?!

I’ve had a client ad up for a couple of days and after 5000 impressions not one click-through! I accept the ad may not be the best but this clients ads do well on Adwords (and we did make some amendments for the Facebook vibe / audience).

Also the Ad manager is awful…

What are other peoples experiences?

]]> By: Frank Herrera http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/08/facebooks-new-ad-platform-illegal/#comment-1742870 Frank Herrera Fri, 09 Nov 2007 15:10:23 +0000 http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/08/facebooks-new-ad-platform-illegal/#comment-1742870 Right of Publicity/privacy laws differ state by state. Some require written consent while others require implied consent. -Frank Herrera, www.trademarkheadquarters.com and www.rra-law.com. Right of Publicity/privacy laws differ state by state. Some require written consent while others require implied consent. -Frank Herrera, http://www.trademarkheadquarters.com and http://www.rra-law.com.

]]> By: Rajeev http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/08/facebooks-new-ad-platform-illegal/#comment-1742821 Rajeev Fri, 09 Nov 2007 14:43:55 +0000 http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/08/facebooks-new-ad-platform-illegal/#comment-1742821 Litigation galore, outdated laws in US strange, Back Home in India, Homosexuality and Lesbian are tabbo and illegal, stalking men is not a crime, And India has 27 states and 7 union territories. Some news for you isn't it, Bye Friend, Since I am a regular reader I expect you give me feed back about my content and blog some day so that my blog stops being a 0 cent blog. Thak U Sir, http://tekno-world.blogspot.com Litigation galore, outdated laws in US strange, Back Home in India, Homosexuality and Lesbian are tabbo and illegal, stalking men is not a crime, And India has 27 states and 7 union territories.

Some news for you isn’t it,
Bye Friend,
Since I am a regular reader I expect you give me feed back about my content and blog some day so that my blog stops being a 0 cent blog.
Thak U Sir,

http://tekno-world.blogspot.com

]]> By: Grip http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/08/facebooks-new-ad-platform-illegal/#comment-1742768 Grip Fri, 09 Nov 2007 14:21:23 +0000 http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/08/facebooks-new-ad-platform-illegal/#comment-1742768 If you don't like the way they are using your personal data, DON'T USE THE SERVICE. They have already come out and basically said they will basically just fall short of selling your soul to the devil. All it's doing is creating more relevant advertising for you. Big deal. These are the same people that were crying about privacy when Gmail first rolled out. If you don’t like the way they are using your personal data, DON’T USE THE SERVICE. They have already come out and basically said they will basically just fall short of selling your soul to the devil. All it’s doing is creating more relevant advertising for you. Big deal. These are the same people that were crying about privacy when Gmail first rolled out.

]]> By: steveballme http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/08/facebooks-new-ad-platform-illegal/#comment-1742758 steveballme Fri, 09 Nov 2007 14:17:32 +0000 http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/08/facebooks-new-ad-platform-illegal/#comment-1742758 .... "a 100 year old privacy law ..." lol My people at Harriers, Choutney, Kambers, Logan, Dunn, Katersios, Schrow and Duloite can rip through something like that in a matter of minutes! Laws are made to be twisted, molded into that which suits the rich! You people are soooo clueless! http://fakesteveballmer.blogspot.com …. “a 100 year old privacy law …” lol
My people at Harriers, Choutney, Kambers, Logan, Dunn, Katersios, Schrow and Duloite can rip through something like that in a matter of minutes!
Laws are made to be twisted, molded into that which suits the rich!
You people are soooo clueless!

http://fakesteveballmer.blogspot.com

]]> By: RecruitingWire http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/08/facebooks-new-ad-platform-illegal/#comment-1742682 RecruitingWire Fri, 09 Nov 2007 13:43:52 +0000 http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/08/facebooks-new-ad-platform-illegal/#comment-1742682 You FaceBook haters, leave the young guy alone. I guess you are all jealous of his success :) As they say in England, Mark Zuckerberg, "more grease to your elbow" :) Keep up the good work :) You FaceBook haters, leave the young guy alone. I guess you are all jealous of his success :)

As they say in England, Mark Zuckerberg, “more grease to your elbow” :)

Keep up the good work :)

]]>