Posts Tagged ‘Facebook’

Facebook admits privacy mistakes following US punishment

Wednesday, November 30th, 2011

In yet another development in the debate on Facebook privacy settings, the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has announced the imposition of various privacy requirements upon the company over the next 20 years.

The initial complaint to the FTC mainly related to changes Facebook made in 2009 that allowed public access to content on pages that users believed were private or inaccessible. The new imposed measures require the company to inform users as to how their data is shared, to obtain express consent to override their privacy settings, and to conduct an independent privacy audit every two years

Mark Zuckerburg, the founder of Facebook, yesterday acknowledged that the company had made a ‘bunch of mistakes’ that had ‘overshadowed much of the good work we’ve done’, whilst pointing to various privacy improvements they had since made.

This is the latest development in the ongoing battle over internet privacy between the FTC and internet companies.

It will be interesting to see how Facebook balance the new privacy requirements with their aim to provide automatic ‘frictionless’ sharing by users.

Laura Mackenzie

Laura Mackenzie
0121 237 3959
lmackenzie@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 8.0/10 (1 vote cast)

Facebook F8: Media sites to tie-up with social networking

Tuesday, September 27th, 2011

Understandably, the annual Facebook F8 developer conference is about the best place to go to find out about the key trends in online social networking. Last week, Mark Zuckerberg announced a new Facebook media sharing application which allows users to share music, TV and film from media sites such as Spotify.

Facebook has clearly recognised that the way technologically literate consumers access media content has changed forever. Illegal file-sharing has increased exponentially since the days of Napster and is now a global phenomenon which is virtually impossible to police. Facebook’s collaboration with innovative media streaming sites will surely be a huge step in the right direction for the online entertainment industry.

The rapid decline in sale of CDs has left the music producers with a profound problem. How do they protect the copyright of their creative endeavours and make a profit? Spotify seems to think the answer is to align their service with the habits of consumers and with more than 750 million active users, there is no online habit more engrained than Facebook.

Dave Drew

Dave Drew
0115 976 6226
ddrew@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)

Social media – its role in the riots

Thursday, August 11th, 2011

Its apparent that social media has been used extensively by those involved in the riots to organise and incite unrest. BlackBerry Messenger (BBM) has been the most popular method of communication with messages then being posted on social network sites like Twitter and Facebook to increase circulation.

Research in Motion, the maker of BlackBerry and a global leader in wireless technology, has committed to assist the authorities ‘in any way it can’ and the police have said they will track down and arrest those who have posted ‘really inflammatory’ messages on BBM and social network sites.

However, its going to be a difficult task due to the number of messages involved, potential resistance from media companies to handover user details and, because BBM messages are usually encrypted when they leave the sender’s phone making tracing calls difficult.
The police will have to adapt their own policing methods to tackle this use of technology as a means of organising unlawful activities.

Posted by Sara McNeill, who specialises in non-contentious intellectual property matters, including licensing, franchise, collaboration and development arrangements and IP audits and strategy; experienced in drafting and advising on commercial agreements.

Sara McNeill

Sara McNeill
0121 237 3930
smcneill@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)

Freedom of speech can be distasteful

Friday, July 16th, 2010

MPs, including David Cameron, roundly condemned tributes left on a Facebook group page dedicated to the gunman Raoul Moat and asked for the group, which also criticises the police, to be taken down. Whilst the offending page has now been taken down by its creator, Facebook themselves declined to do so on the grounds it encouraged public debate. They do have a system in place to address complaints about specific offensive material.

The E-Commerce Directive creates certain protections from liability for illegal material that appears on websites, although these protections have certain exemptions. This includes where the website is put on notice of unlawful material, at which point the ‘host’ must act expeditiously to remove it.

It is arguable whether Facebook’s approach brings it strictly within the protection offered by the Directive. But is it more important for Facebook to be seen to be promoting freedom of speech, even when it could be distasteful?

Fiona Carter

Posted by Fiona Carter
0115 976 6224
fcarter@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Mandy the one man law-maker

Thursday, January 14th, 2010

The Digital Economy Bill continues to be a political hot potato as the government backtracks on key provisions following a wave of criticism.

On this occasion, the issue making the headlines is the proposed “Clause 17”, a provision which would enable the Secretary of State, Lord Mandelson, to make amendments to the Copyright Designs and Patents Act without first consulting Parliament.

In December, top level executives from Google, Yahoo!, eBay and Facebook expressed strong concerns about this in an open letter to Lord Mandelson, the closing line of which reads “we urge you to remove Clause 17 from the bill.” The crux of their complaint is that the controversial provision could pave the way for arbitrary measures and a high degree of uncertainty if new laws can be fast-tracked through the system on a whim.

The government has made a number of concessions in order to allay some of these fears including proposals to water down the powers conferred upon the Secretary of State. In particular, a 60 day consultation period has been proposed, as has an evidential test whereby it must be shown that harm would result if the amendments were not made. In addition, the power cannot be used to create or modify a criminal offence. In spite of mounting opposition to the clause, the government remains in support ofit, stressing that the new powers are required in order to “future-proof” copyright law as new technologies develop.

Whilst most will appreciate that the law must evolve in line with technology, Clause 17 allows the Secretary of State effectively to rewrite primary legislation with a minimum level of Parliamentary scrutiny making this clause, perhaps, a step too far.

Mark Daniels

Posted by Ryan Harrison
0121 237 3950
rharrison@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)