• Welcome
    Sponsors
  • Director
    Assistant Director
    Members
    Advisory Board
    International Advisory Council
    Research Affiliates
    IPilogue Editors
  • IPilogue
    Projects
    Publications
  • JD
    Graduate Program
    Clinical
    Prizes & Awards
  • The IPIGRAM Archive
    Events Archive
    IP in the News
    IP Poll of the Week
    IP Pick of the Week
    Gowlings IPilogue Prize
  • Legislation
    Journals
    Government
  • Contact Us
    Subscribe

Facebook’s new plain language privacy policy

November 10, 2009 by George Nathanael (IPilogue Editor)

George Nathanael is a JD candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

On October 29, Facebook published a new privacy policy that it hopes will allow users to better understand the uses of the information supplied to the website. Elliot Schrage (VP of Global Communications, Marketing and Public Policy), introduced the new policy on Facebook’s blog by saying that “[t]his is the next step in our ongoing effort to run Facebook in an open and transparent way”. Earlier this year Facebook took a similar approach when it released its Statement of Rights and Responsibilities, which contained less legalese than its predecessor, the Terms of Use.

Facebook, having over 300 million users worldwide, has drawn much attention over the last couple of years over concerns relating to the vast amount of personal information it administers. In fact, this past summer the Privacy Commissioner of Canada released a report of findings in response to a complaint made against Facebook for alleged breaches of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA). Schrage stated that, “[i]n this revision, we’re fulfilling our commitment to the Privacy Commissioner of Canada to update our privacy policy to better describe a number of practices”. An issue that was raised a few times in the report was the general difficulty navigating the site to find explicit descriptions of implications of particular features. For example, the difference between deactivating and deleting an account was deemed to be unclear, as the two options were arrived at and explained on different pages, and the deletion option was never quite accessible to begin with from within a user account.

The new policy is now separated into eight sections: 1. Introduction, 2. Information We Receive, 3. Information You Share With Third Parties, 4. How We Use Your Information, 5. How We Share Information, 6. How You Can View, Change, or Remove Information, 7. How We Protect Information, and 8. Other Terms. This policy remains quite similar in substance to the previous one, but the use of plain language and multiple examples make it much simpler to follow and understand. Facebook also seems to be very open with respect to the potential uses of information, such as by third party application developers, despite the possibility of potential users being too worried to join after reading.

Users were given the opportunity to give feedback by commenting on each of the eight sections within a period of one week, however, by the end of this period most sections had only about a hundred comments each, with the introduction having the greatest number at 237. As stated on November 5, on the Facebook Site Governance page, the “total number of comments did not reach the threshold to hold a vote”. Apparently in order for that to have happened, 30% of active users (i.e. those who have logged into the site within the past 30 days) would have had to have participated in the feedback. Despite this, it was promised that the posted comments would be read, though it was not mentioned that they would actually be considered.

In light of the fact that so few users commented on the new privacy policy, it is questionable how much of an impact this change will actually have on the number of new individuals signing up. Though it is nice to possess this knowledge in more substantial terms, I would imagine that most people would have continued using Facebook as they had before. Nonetheless, as the Assistant Privacy Commissioner of Canada stressed when releasing that report of findings over the summer, users should be able to understand what they are getting into. This is definitely a step in the right direction, and Facebook should be commended for its efforts.

Posted in Privacy

Leave a Reply

All replies and responses are moderated and will not appear on the site immediately. Please see our response policy.

« It’s not me, it’s you | IP Osgoode Speaks: Professor Jacqueline Lipton on Privacy in Web 2.0 »

Career Opportunities
Osgoode IP Club
Events Calendar
Writing Competitions
IP Research Guide

 

RSS Follow Comments via RSS
  • bob on Bill C-32: Copyright and Education in the Digital Age
  • Stuart Freen on Sizing Privacy Harm
  • Steven Bercu on First sale and digital content
  • Anonymous on Federal Court of Appeal rules that ISPs are not "broadcasters"
  • Stuart Freen on Federal Court of Appeal rules that ISPs are not "broadcasters"
  • Anonymous on Federal Court of Appeal rules that ISPs are not "broadcasters"
  • Christian Rock on ‘Operation In Our Sites’
  • Anonymous on Does Fashion Need Copyright Protection?
  • Fly Intheointment on ‘Operation In Our Sites’
  • Bart on Copyright Termination: How Authors can Reclaim their Copyrights
RSS Follow Posts via RSS
  • Bratz, Ideas, Expressions, and The American Way
  • CRTC Seizes Internet Regulation Mantle
  • Brand Expectations in the Restroom: 4th Circuit Applies Contributory Trademark Infringement Doctrine to Post-Purchase Confusion Case
  • Yes, Patents Do Have Gender
  • Fashion IP Revisited: The Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Prevention Act
  • RIM’s Battle for Information Privacy, Market Share, and its Reputation
  • Transnational Regulation: Rough Consensus and Running Code
  • IP Osgoode: Call for Editors (2010-2011)
  • Sizing Privacy Harm
  • The Internet Age: The Culprit for a Rise in Plagiarism?
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • June 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • Commercialization (47)
  • Contracts (36)
  • copyright reform (65)
  • defamation (6)
  • events (36)
  • General (120)
  • Innovation (79)
  • Internet (122)
  • IP (651)
    • Copyright (309)
      • CD Levy (6)
      • Digital Downloads (39)
      • Digital Locks (12)
      • Fair Dealing (25)
      • Infringement (61)
      • Internet Sharing (50)
      • Literary Works (24)
      • Movies (24)
      • Music Industry (42)
      • Originality (18)
      • Ownership (45)
        • Licensees (12)
      • Subsidiary Rights (4)
    • Patents (198)
      • Cross Border Issues (34)
      • Electronic Processes (7)
      • Infringement (37)
      • Patent Trolls (10)
      • Patentability (59)
      • Pharmaceutical Drugs (46)
    • Trademarks (130)
      • Domain Names (26)
      • Famous Marks (9)
      • Official Marks (8)
      • Parallel Importation (3)
      • Personality Rights (8)
  • IP Course Topic (11)
  • Links (3)
  • Music Industry (39)
  • Open-Source (14)
  • Osgoode Alumnus (3)
  • Privacy (111)
    • Electronic Databases (23)
    • Human Rights Issues (19)
    • Identity Theft (6)
  • Regulatory Policy (2)
  • Tech Transfer (12)
  • Technology (119)
  • Telecommunications (30)
  • Uncategorized (70)
  • Log in

Home   |   Contact Us  

© 2008 Osgoode Hall Law School York University
4700 Keele Street Toronto, Canada M3J 1P3
T:416.736.5030   F:416.736.5736