Nguyen: Facebook Privacy Policy Hoax Strikes Again
Wednesday, September 30, 2015
It happened again this week. This time around, there were two variations, which looked something like this:
“Better safe than sorry is right. Channel 13 News was just talking about this change in Facebook's privacy policy. Better safe than sorry. As of September 30th , 2015 at 6:00am Eastern standard time, I do not give Facebook or any entities associated with Facebook permission to use my pictures, information, or posts, both past and future. By this statement, I give notice to Facebook it is strictly forbidden to disclose, copy, distribute, or take any other action against me based on this profile and/or its contents. The content of this profile is private and confidential information. The violation of privacy can be published by law (UCC 1-308- 1 1 308-103 and the Rome Statute). NOTE: Facebook is now a public entity. All members must post a note like this. If you prefer, you can copy and paste this version. If you do not publish a statement at least once it will be tactically allowing the use of your photos, as well as information contained in the profile status updates. DO NOT SHARE. You MUST copy and paste.”
“Now it’s official! It has been published in the media. Facebook has just released the entry price: $5.99 to keep the subscription of your status to be set to “private”. If you paste this message on your page, it will be offered free (paste not share) if not tomorrow, all your posts can become public. Even the messages that have been deleted or the photos not allowed. After all, it does not cost anything for a simple copy and paste.”
As with the past Facebook privacy scares, this is a hoax.
What is also clear is that Facebook ALREADY has the right to use our photos and videos. By having a Facebook account, and agreeing to the Terms of Service, “you specifically give [Facebook] the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant [Facebook] a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content (photos and videos) that you post on or in connection with Facebook.” Copying and pasting those bogus declarations above will not change that.
Perhaps what is most alarming about these pervasive “legal” notices is the hive-minded willingness to blindly follow without actually thinking things through.
Facebook is a social media sharing website, so saying that your profile is “private and confidential information” does not make logical sense. Even if you share something with only your “friends” and don’t make it “public” you accept the possibility that those “friends” may copy that information, or share it with others. Legally, for information to be “private and confidential” you have to treat it as such. Sharing it with your closest 800 acquaintances negates any claim you have to its confidentiality.
Moreover, Facebook ALREADY has permission to use your photos and videos. It’s right there in the Statement of Rights and Responsibilities. I doubt that Facebook has used any of my photos or videos for any surreptitious reason and I wonder what it is people are scared Facebook will do with this information or why they still have Facebook accounts if they are so worried.
AiVi Nguyen is a business and trial lawyer with the Law Firm of Bowditch & Dewey, LLP.
Related Articles
- Nguyen: Appealing the Suspension: Brady’s Play Options
- Nguyen: Asian Americans Seek To Abolish Affirmative Action At Harvard
- Nguyen: How Will The Law Protect Caitlyn Jenner Against Discrimination?
- Nguyen: Does Prohibiting A Scandalous Trademark Infringe On The Right To Free Speech?
- Nguyen: The Hope Solo Saga: U.S. Soccer and Domestic Violence Allegations
- Nguyen: Pay to Play Investigation of Craft Beer Industry Comes to a Head
- Nguyen: Tsarnaev: The Cost Of A Death Sentence Versus Life Imprisonment
- Nguyen: Compensating the Victims of the Germanwings Tragedy
- Nguyen: Sentencing Tsarnaev To Death: The Burden Of Proof
- Nguyen: The Civil Suits Against Aaron Hernandez
- Nguyen: Same Sex Marriage Before the Supreme Court: What is at Stake?
- Nguyen: MLB Hacking Scandal: The Cardinals’ Potential Legal Exposure
- Nguyen: Understanding the Logic of the Same-Sex Marriage Decision by SCOTUS
- Nguyen: Did You Know Jim Beam Bourbon Is Not “Handcrafted”?
- Nguyen: How the Deceased Auburn Child Ended Up in Foster Care
- Nguyen: Clerk That Won’t Grant Marriage Licenses To Gay Couples May Be Held In Contempt
- Nguyen: The Judge’s Logic in Overturning Brady’s 4-Game Suspension
- Nguyen: The Problem with Releasing Kim Davis from Jail
- Nguyen: The Family of Hall of Famer Junior Seau vs. The NFL
- Nguyen: What You Need to Know Before Signing Uber Petition
- Nguyen: Spanking Your Kids: The Parental Privilege Defense
- Nguyen: Fans are Tired of the “Baseball Rule” and Demand Safety
- Nguyen: The Ashley Madison Hack - Why Users Should Probably Still Be Worried
- Nguyen: Goodell’s Final Decision: Does the Punishment Fit the Crime?
- Nguyen: Massachusetts Investigates the Legality of DraftKings
Follow us on Pinterest Google + Facebook Twitter See It Read It