The operators of social networking sites, such as Facebook, would not be obliged to delete every piece of information about individuals that they host under proposed new EU 'right to be forgotten' laws, the European Commission has said. The Commission said that the platforms would not have to delete information that users elect …
Looks like the lobbying's worked then
Of course 'friends only' means data shared with friends, the host, other services provided by the same host including ad networks, 3rd party advertisers...
What is the point, then?
Does this not allow Facebook to keep pretty much everything?
I look forward to
people to be able to tell Google to remove all references to them in Google's results.
Re: I look forward to
...and subsequently all the links therefore indexed at 'Chilling Effects'.
Not sure I like this concept. I can understand one side of the argument in wanting privacy (though if you value privacy not sure why you'd post all your laundry for everyone to index on a social network with 'public' set as default); however suppose I'm hiring a builder and want to find out info on him to see if he's not a cowboy - same goes for a solicitor or a public servant.
There are already laws in place to deal with slander and libel, I'd prefer these be used (sparingly) as opposed to blanket censorship on googling someone's name or business.
...the only data that stands a chance of getting deleted as opposed to Streisanded (new word of the day?) is the same data that is exempt from the rules?
I don't see why one does not have the right to say to facebook "I would like to leave facebook and as such I politely request that everything you have on me/my e-mail address/etc is removed from your databases."
What's so complicated about that? Sure, facebook ain't gonna like it but I think that simple right is what we should all have.
None of this "some of my posts can stay", just simply "I want to close my account, *delete* it and everything related to it please."
After reading the article, I'm not sure if there is not a misunderstanding here.
The wording looks very similar to that of the continental European data protection laws that I'm familiar with, so a priori I would think the interpretation would be the same.
If that were the case, what this means is this: You, Ms. Alice, have been added as a "friend" by Mr. Bob (this possibly includes revealing your email address or other personal details to Bob). Now you, Alice, decide to leave whichever social network you should have never joined in the first place: the social network operator has to delete every bit of personal info you have provided to them, or they have otherwise collected in the course of your membership. What they will not have to do, is delete data in Bob's "friend" or contact list concerning you, even if they are hosting it, as long as they do not benefit from it in any way. That data would now belong to Bob and it would be up to him to remove it.
Presumably however, if Bob himself decided to leave the social network, then his contact list (with Alice's details on it) should go. Unfortunately the article has not made this point clear one way or another.
That's how I'm reading it, anyway.
So I, a non-Facebook user, get an email from a Facebook user (who I know), inviting me to sign up so I can look at some photos. Even though I ignore this generous offer, I'm now 'known' to Facebook via the contacts list (not the friends list) for that user. Would this proposed law allow me to have FB remove this info from their data stores ? Would it allow me to ask them for details of the info they hold on me as a non-user (including the info they add as a result of me asking...) ?
Re: [No Title]
What I believe this law says (and I haven't looked at it closely yet) is that as long as FB does not make any use of it, the contacts list belongs to that FB user known to you (FB is merely hosting it) and as such considered data held by a private person. You have, as far as I'm aware, no lawful (as opposed to moral) right to request that such person delete that data from his records (where and however they are stored), but this is what the current situation is in Europe anyway, this is merely clarifying this point a bit more. It also adds the caveat that, as soon as FB decide to use that data they are hosting, they become the custodian with all that entails under existing data protection laws.
So all in all, this does not seem such a negative move to me, except that of course I could be way off the mark here. If so, apologies for any confusion caused.
What about "ad sponsors" who get access to privvy info...?
What duty will they have when a user says, "Don't share me. I'm leaving. Stop sharing me! I left! Tell them to stop contacting me!"?
I am of the suspicion that adsense-like programs must afford some amount of information to ad targeting firms. They can't just take google's or facebook's word for it, right?
- Top Gear Tigers and Bingo Boilers: Farewell then, Phones4U
- Analysis iPhone 6: The final straw for Android makers eaten alive by the data parasite?
- Stephen Pie iPhone 6: Most exquisite MOBILE? No. It is the Most Exquisite THING. EVER
- First Crack Bloke buys iPHONE 6 and DROPS IT to SMASH on PURPOSE
- Early result from Scots indyref vote? NAW, Jimmy - it's a SCAM