Facebook appears to have crossed user privacy boundaries for the second time in under three years with their latest program, “Instant Personalization”. The service, which immediately customizes a site based on a user’s Facebook data the moment they visit the site, has drawn the attention of a number of Senators, not just users. While the debate between Facebook and public officials continues to rage on, one has to wonder: why is Facebook so intent on pushing the limits of our privacy?
The Senators Question Facebook
Yesterday we wrote about a number of Senators who had begun questioning some of Facebook’s latest actions, most importantly, demanding that Facebook make their new “instant personalization” service an opt-in one. While there’s no guarantee that Facebook will be proactive about making a change to the service, the senators are considering asking the FTC to define privacy rules that online companies must follow when managing and sharing user data.
Yesterday I had the opportunity to chat with some of the people at CNN about the new feature, which during testing, required a number of steps in order to opt-out of the new service. The “instant personalization” service is something we wouldn’t have been aware of had we not stumbled across one of Facebook’s partner sites or followed Facebook so closely.
Anti-Privacy Claims Surface
Earlier today New York Times writer Nick Bilton tweeted that a Facebook employee told him that Mark Zuckerberg does not believe in privacy. A dialogue ensued about whether or not Bilton should have posted the tweet since he told his source it was “off the record”. Considering Facebook’s history of providing granular privacy tools, it seems somewhat out of character for Mark Zuckerberg to ever state that he “doesn’t believe in privacy”.
While Zuckerberg has suggested that there is an ongoing trend toward openness, the company has attempted to enable users to control what information is public and what is private. While there is still some question about how much users are aware of what is being shared about them, it’s pretty clear that Facebook wants to do good for the most part. However on occasion, the company crosses an invisible line.
Why Must They Test The Limits Of Privacy?
The first time Facebook crossed the line was when they launched Beacon, back in November of 2007. The service enabled Facebook users’ activity to be tracked around the web. Stories would then be published about that activity after the user took some type of action on the site they were visiting. The service was eventually shut down following a massive community backlash and countless lawsuits, one of which which eventually resulted in a pretty large, $9.5 million settlement.
At the time, the greatest point of contention was that the service was opt-out, not opt-in. However, years later, Facebook has tried to force users to accept another opt-out service. Did the company not learn their lesson the first time around? And more importantly, why on earth does Facebook continue to test the limits of privacy?
I Would Have Opted In
As I previously mentioned, Facebook Beacon was not a bad idea, the only problem was how it was implemented. Had the service been opt-in, I would have used it, yet Facebook probably thinks that most users wouldn’t have. The latest service, “Instant Personalization”, has some great features. As I explained to the CNN correspondent yesterday, I actually like the new “Instant Personalization”, as I enjoy seeing what my friends have been up to on other sites.
The only problem with it, is that Facebook forced it upon all users. If the users like the service, there’s no doubt that other people will begin to opt-in to the service as they share the feature with their friends. Unfortunately though, Facebook has crossed the line once again and is now forcing users to opt-out.
Privacy And Innovation Can Go Together
One of the fundamental philosophies that appears to be spreading around the internet startup world is that innovation and privacy are not complimentary. Twitter, for example, let’s you publish any information you want to the public. While the service has a private option, most users make their information totally public on Twitter. Blippy, a service that has faced increasing scrutiny over the past week, lets users publish information about every purchase they’re making.
Foursquare, one of the most buzzed about startups right now, let’s you post your location for all to see. Does this mean that this is the way the world is going? Or does it simply mean this is the way that internet startups have chosen to “innovate”? I’d argue that it’s the latter and ultimately, Facebook will win when users have complete control of all their information.
While sharing information has become an integral component of our daily communication, who we share that information with differs from person to person. With close to 450 million users, Facebook has plenty of opportunities to make money while simultaneously releasing new innovative technologies. None of this need to violate users’ privacy.
Despite this, Facebook continues to release products that violate the users’ trust and ultimately, that’s going to be more damaging to the company than anything else. Rather than publicly debate the issue with the Senators and the general public, Facebook should spend their time innovating in areas that don’t intend to abuse users’ privacy. While the “instant personalization” service may have been launched with good intentions, it’s only damaging Facebook’s reputation at this point.
Do you see any benefit to Facebook’s continued test of user privacy limits? Do you support Facebook’s opt-out services?
![[Inside Social Apps 2012]](http://www.allfacebook.com/wordpress/wp-content/themes/allfacebook2/images/ISA2012_336x100_F_RegisterNow.gif)
![[AllFacebook Stats: Facebook Analytics for Your Business]](http://www.allfacebook.com/wordpress/wp-content/themes/allfacebook2/images/stpro_allfacebookstats.gif)
![[How can Facebook change your business?]](http://www.allfacebook.com/wordpress/wp-content/themes/allfacebook2/images/FMB_A_MAY2011_336x100_F.gif)
I'd much rather opt-in. I don't share all my info with anyone and don't really want basic surfing info broadcast all over.
I'll share what I want, when I want, with who I want, thank you.
Comment by Steve Farkas — April 28, 2010 @ 12:58 pm
Nick- I think your arguments are spot on. The only constraint in an opt-in service is fairly clear though. How do you show immediate value for social engagement across the web if the vast majority of users don't even know to opt-in to the service, or if presented with the option, choose not to. While I share many of your concerns, ultimately I appreciate the fact that Facebook is willing to break a few eggs to truly innovate. You could argue just as effectively that making all web pages more social adds enormous value to the online experience. The only way to get there was by providing a process that users could opt-out of sharing their data to 'everyone'. At the very least, that option is available to anyone who wants to maintain privacy.
Comment by Ro — April 28, 2010 @ 1:06 pm
I think you hit the nail on the head. Facebook has more to lose than it has to gain. There's no reason to not make this a simple opt-in. I'd argue that, while misguided, most people on Facebook feel they are sharing information only with a select group of hand-picked friends. Once they start doubting that, the whole atmosphere of the site will be poisoned. At this point it's virtually impossible to tell what's being shared and with whom–and there's no reason it needs to be that complicated. The worst part is that those of us who are building on the Facebook platform will all be tainted by this, regardless of how we treat our user's information.
Comment by Liesel Pollvogt — April 28, 2010 @ 1:11 pm
Can someone explain to me how after opting out of Facebooks new sharing feature, CNN still knows who my facebook friends are?
Comment by Eric — April 28, 2010 @ 1:35 pm
This is and has been a huge focal point to many facebook users…it is chatted about by the minute. We hate it! We have been chatting amongst ourselves about leaving facebook altogether..Im sure we can find another thing to do somewhere else.
I left MY SPACE and I can leave this one too.
This is a big sore to us users.
This new "like" thing and letting all those bogus apps to attack those innocents without internet smarts, and even those that have it…now this? What? You getting too big for your britches??
What does he mean when he says he doesnt believe in privacy?
Hello!!!! What the heck is wrong with this?
We want our will back to choose..make it easy.
The internet is a dangerous thing…and you just made it even more dangerous. Don't you have enough money?!
Comment by Facebook User — April 28, 2010 @ 1:55 pm
I deliberately do not share any of my more deeply-personal details for precisely this reason. The instant Facebook requires me to state my political affiliation, my religious denomination, or something that personal, that is the day I leave that place. Why don't I do this? It's nobody's business but my own! I have felt that religion and spirituality are entirely a personal experience. I feel it is nobody's business but my own to find that. As for politics, I need only say two words: Secret ballot.
If what that tweet above says has ANY shred of truth to it, at the rate things are going, the most likely place Mark Zuckerberg will find himself will be in front of a Senate panel asking some pretty pointed questions about why we should allow him to continuously rape our privacy like that. Not to mention, if he truly is that flippant about people's privacy, he will likely very quickly change his tune once some manner of inquiry into his shenanigans begins.
Here's to hoping a future legal or, better still, legislative proceeding will actually send the message home. Our information is just that. Ours.
Comment by IJ — April 28, 2010 @ 1:56 pm
I agree with the comments published. I don't like my privacy invaded. I want to control my own data. I for one don't want everyone to know what sites I've visited. It's MY business. If it wasn't for the fact that I have so many connections on Facebook I would leave it.
Comment by Carolyn — April 28, 2010 @ 2:29 pm
It is not exactly top-secret info that Mark Zuckerberg does not believe in privacy. It's well known that he's falsely claimed that people WANT to share all their information, without taking into account the scores of people who protest every time Facebook strips away yet another level of privacy. I feel certain they are moving towards forcing everyone to share everything with the entire internet, and by the time it happens it will be too late to stop it. So glad I did not use my real last name as Facebook "requires", you know, because people "want" to share their information.
Comment by Facebook User — April 28, 2010 @ 2:34 pm
Very good writeup. What's surprising is that they did not even take the time to test out these new features with a small number of their users, instead they deployed to everyone immediately.
Comment by igniman — April 28, 2010 @ 3:28 pm
Does anyone notice that the previous commentors all have a facebook brand on their profile pics? Does anyone find that disturbing?
Comment by David Daniels — April 28, 2010 @ 3:42 pm
No, it just means that we've CHOSEN to connect their Facebook profiles with this website.
Comment by Tom Ditmars — April 28, 2010 @ 9:53 pm
this is why I don't have a facebook pg!
Comment by k.t. — April 28, 2010 @ 11:09 pm
I understand the need to go slow on full integration of the new features but got to say giving so much credence to what Nick Hilton wrote on Twitter is a bit lame.
I mean, who's the employee/he's off-record/etc. – not a very reliable source at all, etc. etc.
Comment by Simon Baptist — April 29, 2010 @ 12:48 am
I'm still using Facebook, but my dislike of the company only keeps growing.
Comment by Facebook User — April 29, 2010 @ 3:21 am
I feel that many people jump on with the privacy rant without first taking a look at what is actually being shared. You'd be a fool to put any of these things on facebook: bank account number, home address, phone number (people you want to talk to already have it, right?), social security number, your salary, etc. Obviously, if these were shared it could dramatically impact your life.
Instead, we're talking about things like: your favorite pizza joint, a birthday, or your latest favorite movie. I'm not sure why people care about the fact that this info might be shared. I understand the issue of getting your permission first, and agree that they should be more upfront. I'm not sure why people care so much about the rest of it being shared. Every "discount" card you use at an establishment is tracking your buying habits in ways that would astonish you. No one seems to care about that though.
I say keep life altering information off of your page, have fun with it, and don't worry about it.
Comment by Clint Carlson — April 29, 2010 @ 9:33 am
How is this new service that different from Beacon? Seems like a huge misstep to me for them to repeat the same mistake.
Comment by fleurdamour — April 29, 2010 @ 10:54 am
This isn't the worst of it. "Community Pages" goes even further in violating the privacy of your wall. Try it sometime. If you have stated that you went to ABC High School in your profile, and then you write on your wall something about "ABC High School" – even if you have restricted your wall posts to Only Friends, guess what? Your remark and all comments about your remark will land on the PUBLIC Community Page for "ABC High School". This amounts to Facebook wanting you to BELIEVE that you have control over your own privacy, but they will over-ride that control whenever they feel like it.
To those who say I should not care whether or not people know that I've been talking about ABC High School – it's not your call. If I want my conversations to be private, then it's none of your business why or if I make them private. It's MY privacy, not yours – and not Facebook's either.
Facebook has broken faith with all of us a few too many times now. In their quest to make money they have trampled upon people's faith in them that when they SAY they are giving us control over our privacy, they MEAN it. Well, they don't mean it. At all.
Comment by Erin — April 30, 2010 @ 5:22 am
whats the deal with sites like zabasearch and intellius or now spokeo. How are they getting all of our personal info? I can only assume its thru facebook. They publish our address, phone number, credit score, income, own home, rent, family size, trade, etc. Also backround check. Does anyone know if this info is being phished from facebook? And how many online phonebook information sites like this exist? Am I just catching on that all my info is out there, even if its not all accurate? Spokeo tells the online community, my address, phone number, that im widowed, the value of my home and my income. How is that legal?
Comment by Jen — April 30, 2010 @ 10:30 am
First mistake is to go online thinking you have privacy.
Comment by Farmer — April 30, 2010 @ 8:20 pm
Jen – just how would Facebook know your credit score, address (unless you provided it), income, home size etc? What a ridiculous comment. Facebook isn't selling your private info, those sites are (probably illegally) scraping your publicly available information.
Comment by gecko — May 3, 2010 @ 7:44 am
Fantastic post, thank you. Particularly this message: "Privacy And Innovation Can Go Together." Critically important words for the next chapter of the internet.
Also excellent point that Beacon and Instant Personalization might have actually been appealing if only they had been opt-in.
Comment by Bjorn Larsen — May 8, 2010 @ 1:46 pm
Spokeo gets their people search information from dozens of social networking and social media sites via api access. They probably also aggregate public records from numerous government and third party sources.
Comment by people finder — May 10, 2010 @ 7:25 am