Canada getting all up in your Facebook

August 1, 2009 9:47 AM

In response to a complaint by law students at the University of Ottawa in May of 2008, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada has found that Facebook is operating contrary to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. In other words, Facebook is breaching Canadian privacy law. Facebook has pledged to work with the Canadian government on this issue, and has 30 days to comply; if the Commissioner remains unsatisfied with their progress, they may take the case to Federal Court to force compliance.
posted by stinkycheese (45 comments total)

30 days to comply? I'd give them 20 seconds.
posted by you just lost the game at 9:56 AM on August 1, 2009 [2 favorites]

box likes this.
posted by box at 10:03 AM on August 1, 2009

I'm sure this is the wrong place to ask this, but where's the "Open Source Facebook"?
posted by philip-random at 10:10 AM on August 1, 2009

Facebook is already kind of creepy in terms of privacy, even with the "user decided" policies that have formed as of late. This coming from a guy who visits the site twice, sometimes three times a day. I'm surprised more people haven't been on their backs about these issues.
posted by Askiba at 10:12 AM on August 1, 2009 [1 favorite]

I always felt it was a violation of my privacy when somebody threw a taco at me.
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:26 AM on August 1, 2009 [6 favorites]

Kudos on the Robocop clip.

I've always been suspicious that Facebook keeps it's privacy policies purposely opaque so that users don't know what rights they might have.

This is a company, after all, that traffics in selling ads based on information it gets from its users. Good for the Canadian government for looking out for things like this.
posted by elder18 at 10:26 AM on August 1, 2009

thanks for reminding me! i just disabled my facebook account.
posted by klanawa at 10:31 AM on August 1, 2009

Definitely a huge issue up here right now. Every once in a while, a story will pop up that an employee was fired due to Facebook posts or photos, or that employers are "spying" on potential candidates by using Facebook. (see here for related article.)

You know, I have no problem being marketed to, etc. But what I do have a problem with is the photo-tagging/video-tagging/article-tagging/all-reply-message-non-opt-out-ing. I think that's what they're probably being asked to change.

Google ads market to me all the time. I don't think Facebook should be punished. But I'm glad they're willing to make changes. Hopefully they're enough—I would probably use and trust the site more.
posted by Khazk at 10:36 AM on August 1, 2009

I'm sure this will only affect Canadian FB users.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:38 AM on August 1, 2009

Sometimes, Facebook decides you aren't who you say you are.

No, I never got a definitive answer as to what happened or why.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:38 AM on August 1, 2009

I'm sure this is the wrong place to ask this, but where's the "Open Source Facebook"?

E-Mail?
posted by Space Coyote at 10:39 AM on August 1, 2009

Nice newsfilter post, stinkycheese. Recently I created a dummy Facebook account under protest since so many of my friends have joined, despite my vocal misgivings about their privacy policy (the company's run like an pyramid scheme for online extroverts). The CBC article you mention is now the first link I've made on my "wall".

Counting down ... 30 ...
posted by Doktor Zed at 10:40 AM on August 1, 2009

You know, I have no problem being marketed to, etc. But what I do have a problem with is the photo-tagging/video-tagging/article-tagging/all-reply-message-non-opt-out-ing. I think that's what they're probably being asked to change.

You know you can untag yourself out of anything you find objectionable, right?
posted by nasreddin at 10:59 AM on August 1, 2009 [1 favorite]

Get yer face offa facebook.
posted by Burhanistan at 11:23 AM on August 1, 2009

I am not a member of facebook but it really creeps me out that maybe someone has uploaded photos of me and identified me by my unique name. For all that it is "free" it sure costs a lot in loss of privacy.
posted by saucysault at 11:34 AM on August 1, 2009

Blazecock Pileon: I'm sure this will only affect Canadian FB users.

Not so:

"We're going to continue the dialogue," Chris Kelly, chief privacy officer for Facebook, said in a phone interview from Facebook's headquarters in California. "We have every confidence that we'll come to an acceptable conclusion."

Kelly said that any improvements made to respond to federal privacy commissioner Jennifer Stoddart's concerns will apply to Facebook operations worldwide.
posted by stinkycheese at 11:47 AM on August 1, 2009 [1 favorite]

Facebook is an American company, right? Based in the US, using servers in the US? (ARIN says it's in Palo Alto.)

Why don't they tell the Canadians to take a hike? Canadian courts don't have jurisdiction over American companies, and foreign courts may not enforce court orders in the US that would infringe American constitutional rights, such as Facebook's First Amendment right to free speech.

If there's a privacy issue to be dealt with here, it would have to be dealt with under US law.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 11:49 AM on August 1, 2009

Seems like the Facebook 'statement of rights and responsibilities', previously known as 'terms of use', are now mildly less insane than they used to be in that now Facebook will inform you when these terms change, whereas in the past it was the users' responsibility constantly follow the terms for any changes if they wanted to be sure to avoid, say, consenting (through "continued use of the service") to forfeit one (1) kidney each to Zuckerberg.

They still retain the right to sell the information about everyone's social contacts to anyone they wish, and I'm sure to stay out at least until that changes.
posted by Anything at 12:00 PM on August 1, 2009

CP - Via Michael Geist's commenters: The test would be a "real and substantial connection": 10% of facebook users are Canadian, facebook.ca resolves to facebook.com, etc..
posted by acro at 12:02 PM on August 1, 2009

"... responsibility to constantly follow..."
posted by Anything at 12:02 PM on August 1, 2009

Chocolate Pickle: One reason Facebook is subject to Canadian privacy laws is that they have a sales office in Toronto. I dunno about Canadian law, but in the US a physical presence like that is more than sufficient to create jurisdiction. For a little more information, here's a job posting for that office.
posted by jedicus at 12:07 PM on August 1, 2009 [1 favorite]

Pokes
------------------------------------
Canada - Poke Back | Remove.
posted by srboisvert at 12:12 PM on August 1, 2009 [3 favorites]

Facebook is an American company, right? Based in the US, using servers in the US? (ARIN says it's in Palo Alto.)

Why don't they tell the Canadians to take a hike? Canadian courts don't have jurisdiction over American companies, and foreign courts may not enforce court orders in the US that would infringe American constitutional rights, such as Facebook's First Amendment right to free speech.

If there's a privacy issue to be dealt with here, it would have to be dealt with under US law.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 7:49 PM on August 1 [+] [!]

thee hee


Case a could of years back yahoo tried to pull the same defence when some of its sites contained nazi material which is illegal in Germany (hazy on the details, but the bones are there).

Argument wasnt quite "stop oppressing our constitution" but "oh we dont control who gets to see what where, how can this be our responsibilty". It did them find till a bright chap realised you can recognise the geographic location of any surfer thanks to his/her IP address. New legal challenge, same defence: they lost.

Courts aren't stupid you know, they understand that physical geography has only an incidental bearing on "internet" geography. If Facebooks tells Canada to 'take a hike' they will lose, no matter what's in the US Constitution or where their servers are.

(im no lawyer, just a student, but GOD i love to do that)
posted by litleozy at 12:15 PM on August 1, 2009 [1 favorite]

Facebook is fucking ridiculous. I don't know why people (in the collective sense) put up with that nonsense. There was an article a while back about people with unusual names getting kicked off. They obviously don't care too much about their users. Obviously individual users are enticed by the fact that everyone they know has an account, but really something a lot better could be built.

Of course before facebook, there was Myspace which was way worse. But I think FB has reached a level where there just isn't enough of a motivation to move off for better services.
posted by delmoi at 12:16 PM on August 1, 2009

okay here are the links that I should have added to my previous comment (turns out it was in France not Germany)

Yahoo loses case; Yahoo has to pay fine (ignore how Yahoo try to spin as if it's a good thing)
posted by litleozy at 12:25 PM on August 1, 2009

The PIPED Act. Lulz.

Reminds me of the 'series of tubes' comment by Ted Stevens.
posted by kldickson at 12:43 PM on August 1, 2009

where's the "Open Source Facebook"?

Well, Livejournal is open source… LJ doesn't have the same "app platform" thing that FB has, but from an open source perspective, the whole web is your app platform.
posted by hattifattener at 1:08 PM on August 1, 2009

10% of facebook users are Canadian

This isn't relevant. All that's relevant is that they have a business presence in Canada.

MetaFilter has some Canadian users, but that gives the Privacy Commissioner no power to tell Matt what to do.
posted by oaf at 1:30 PM on August 1, 2009

It's kind of irrelevant whether or not Facebook is technically bound to Canadian law. They have a market there, and they are savvy enough to realize that they're much better off playing nice with the Canadian government rather than some middle-finger-we're-Americans gesture. That should be obvious.
posted by Burhanistan at 1:39 PM on August 1, 2009 [1 favorite]

It's kind of irrelevant whether or not Facebook is technically bound to Canadian law. They have a market there, and they are savvy enough to realize that they're much better off playing nice with the Canadian government rather than some middle-finger-we're-Americans gesture. That should be obvious.

What's not obvious to me is whether a country should try to enforce its laws on someone to whom they don't technically apply. Laws are technical things.
posted by Wood at 1:45 PM on August 1, 2009

Is there a site somewhere that has a rundown of all the various ways in which Facebook is so ridiculous? These various anti-Facebook threads have made me pretty suspicious of the site, but when I've tried to articulate my worries to other Facebook users, it's always come across as unconvincing and kind of paranoid. I'd like to educate myself to see if I can mount a proper attack---one that will convince the most tech-unsavvy Facebook user.
posted by painquale at 2:13 PM on August 1, 2009 [1 favorite]

I dunno about Canadian law, but in the US a physical presence like that is more than sufficient to create jurisdiction.

It's more than sufficient to create jurisdiction in Canada as well.

NOW YOU KNOW AND KNOWING IS HALF THE BATTLE
posted by mightygodking at 3:02 PM on August 1, 2009

I Googled around the other day and there were like 40 or so open source social networking platforms. It's not a lack of software that's causing these problems, it's the fact that facebook already has everyone, so the marginal benefit of moving to a new network is pretty low.
posted by delmoi at 3:22 PM on August 1, 2009

Been waiting a long time for something like this to happen. Good on those law students, and good on Canada.
posted by lunit at 3:56 PM on August 1, 2009

thanks for reminding me! i just went and played Cute Catz.
posted by Joey Michaels at 4:03 PM on August 1, 2009

The PIPED Act. Lulz. Reminds me of the 'series of tubes' comment by Ted Stevens.

Well, for what it's worth, no-one calls it that here; it's always "PIPEDA" pronounced "PIP-uh-duh", and it's broad enough that I don't think it's generally even considered an "Internet law".

(In fact I bet you'd find a lot of Canadian companies that don't think they have to comply because they're not in health care, even though it's not health-care-specific; it's just that the place where most people run into it is privacy policy paperwork at their doctor's office.)
posted by mendel at 5:22 PM on August 1, 2009

NOW YOU KNOW AND KNOWING IS HALF THE BATTLE
posted by juv3nal at 8:04 PM on August 1, 2009

I have always been astounded at how successful FB has been in sucking in huge swathes of people who are using their real names. I get a ton of FB invites from friends, and some of them seem really offended when I decline to join. Is there some sort of fiduciary reward to inviting people?

I mean, did nobody read the initial privacy policy...which has just gotten more draconian over time? Didn't it occur to anyone that the whole "no pseudonyms" was dangerous? Especially since obviously, there will always be a segment of the population that uses it as a research (or stalking) tool, but don't want their activities to be connected to a "real name"?

And did nobody even look at who was funding this? Accel Partners, invested $10 million...If you follow VC folks (and who doesn't), you'll see a talent pool showed up from Q-Tel right at point of investment. Q-tel is a venture capital fund formed in 1999 to help the CIA identify and invest in companies of interest. Tin-foil hat time? Yeah, perhaps. I do love a good conspiracy.

But still, I don't see what it offers that could possibly be worth losing as much privacy as is signed away by accepting their policies.
posted by dejah420 at 11:16 PM on August 1, 2009 [1 favorite]

Oh, but, dejah420, there are so many rewards beyond the fiduciary. There is the white, there are the virgins, there are the grand rewards of our holy overseers. All is bright. All is good. I also want to fit an Orwell or Huxley reference in, but I can`t be bothered to be even mildly clever right now.

My poorly made point is, apparently most people don`t care that much about their privacy. As long as Facebook is protecting us from the terrorists.
posted by converge at 5:25 AM on August 2, 2009

Now the Pentagon is investigating Facebook too.
posted by stinkycheese at 10:34 AM on August 6, 2009

And the National Post starts a three-part series on privacy law and the Internet.
posted by stinkycheese at 10:35 AM on August 6, 2009

Facebook must satisfy Canada's privacy commissioner by Monday.
posted by stinkycheese at 10:13 PM on August 16, 2009

Facebook has moved to placate Canada's Privacy Commissioner, amending some policies and answering complaints about the availability of its users' personal information.

...

Whether Facebook's plan meets the commissioner's standards is unknown; the response is under wraps, and the commissioner will take up to two weeks to review it.

"We will make the outcomes of our discussions public," said Anne-Marie Hayden, the Privacy Commissioner's spokeswoman.
posted by stinkycheese at 9:57 AM on August 18, 2009

Canada's privacy commissioner is set to announce Thursday a timetable for changes to the globally popular website Facebook that will bring the online social network closer in line with Canadian privacy law.
posted by stinkycheese at 6:27 AM on August 27, 2009

Facebook has agreed to make changes to protect users' personal information on the social networking site, including the way data is accessed by third-party developers, Canada's privacy commissioner said Thursday...

Facebook agreed to make changes dealing with third-party applications like quizzes and games, deactivation of accounts, the personal identification of non-users and accounts of users who die...

Facebook has agreed to prevent an application from accessing information until it obtains express consent for each category of personal information.

It also agreed to make it clear to users that they can either deactivate or delete their accounts, where deleting will remove the information entirely. And for non-users or deceased users, the company promised to change the wording of its terms of use statement and privacy policy to better spell out its practices...

Facebook has agreed to a timetable for the changes, and the privacy commissioner said they expect the changes to be put in effect within a year.

"It's now up to Facebook to demonstrate to us that they are living up to their commitments," said (Privacy Commissioner) Denham.

Heh. People will be dying to get off Facebook now.
posted by stinkycheese at 8:55 AM on August 27, 2009