Social-networking sites face new privacy battle

California could force Facebook and other social-networking sites to change their privacy protection policies under a first-of-its-kind proposal at the state Capitol that is opposed by much of the Internet industry.

Under the proposal, SB242, social-networking sites would have to allow users to establish their privacy settings - like who could view their profile and what information would be public to everyone on the Internet - when they register to join the site instead of after they join. Sites would also have to set defaults to private so that users would choose which information is public.

Currently, some sites, like Facebook, have default settings that make certain information - such as photos, biographical information and family information - available to everyone on the Internet after a user registers, unless the user changes those privacy settings.

And while Facebook itself has not told the Legislature it is opposed to , the bill's author, Sen. Ellen Corbett, D-San Leandro, said the social-networking giant has worked in "stealth mode" to oppose it.

The legislation would require that privacy controls be explained in "plain language." Willful violations of the law would result in a $10,000 fine for each violation.

"You shouldn't have to sign in and give up your personal information before you get to the part where you say, 'Please don't share my personal information,' " Corbett said.

The bill also would require a social-networking site to remove personally identifying information of a user if requested and by the request of a parent of a user under 18.

But the measure is facing a strong push back from online companies arguing that the bill is unconstitutional and unworkable and that such a measure actually would decrease privacy for people who use social networking. The bill passed through a legislative committee last week and is headed to the Senate floor, where it will face an intense assault from the industry.

Unintended consequences

Tammy Cota, the executive director of the Internet Alliance trade association that includes Google, eHarmony, Match.com, Facebook and other companies, said the law would have myriad unintended consequences.

The bill "would force users to make decisions about privacy and visibility of all information well before they even used the service for the first time, and in such a manner that they are less likely to pay attention and process the information," Cota wrote in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which approved the measure.

Opponents argue that could lead to users setting privacy settings they don't fully understand and making public information they want to keep private.

However, Facebook itself has changed its settings for new users over the past few years, as in 2005 the privacy policy stated, "no personal information ... will be available to any user of the web site who does not belong to at least one of the groups specified by you in your privacy settings," according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco organization that has monitored the changes.

The latest privacy policy from April 2010 states, "When you connect with an application or website it will have access to general information about you. The term general information includes you and your friends' names, profile pictures, gender, user IDs, connections, and any content shared using the 'Everyone' privacy setting. ... The default privacy setting for certain types of information you post on Facebook is set to 'Everyone.' "

When a new user signs up for Facebook, the default settings shares with "Everyone" a user's status update, photos and posts, biographical information, favorite quotations and family and relationships that are entered into the site. They are available to everyone on the Internet.

The bill would affect more than just Facebook, as the bill defines a social-networking site as an Internet site where a user can construct a public or partly public profile that connects to other users and that allows for viewing and traversing the user's own list of connections and those of others.

While much of the focus is on the social-networking giant, Cota said the proposal also would have a large effect on dating websites.

But Facebook is facing extra criticism from Corbett, because while the company has not stated it is opposed, a company lobbyist handed talking points opposing the measure to some members of the committee prior to the hearing. Those included calling the legislation a "serious threat" to the company's ability to do business in California.

"It's very strange to have opposition in a stealth position," Corbett said.

Stealth opposition also violates the code of conduct for the Institute of Government Advocates, the association that represents lobbyists and lobbying firms at the state Capitol. The code of conduct states, "A member owes a public officeholder an obligation to inform the officeholder of the member's planned opposition to a proposal by the officeholder prior to the member's active opposition."

Facebook's spokesman Andrew Noyes said, "Any legislative or regulatory proposal must honor users' expectations in the contexts in which they use online services and promote the innovation that fuels the growth of the Internet economy. This legislation is a serious threat both to Facebook's business in California and to meaningful California consumers' choices about use of personal data."

Facebook is currently embroiled in scandal after it was revealed this week that the company had hired a big-time public relations firm to plant negative stories about its archrival Google in the press.

Complicated settings

Privacy settings on sites like Facebook are difficult for the average user to understand and navigate, said Nicole Ozer, technology and civil liberties policy director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California.

She said Corbett's bill "would take the pressure off each individual to understand every setting and what it means to change the setting."

Ozer said people use Facebook and sites like it to engage in social and political activities and are not necessarily posting information because they want to share it with the whole world. She noted that even if information is private to other users, it is not private to Facebook and that it can still be used for marketing and advertising purposes.

But concerns about the impact of the measure, and whether it would drive Internet businesses out of the state, is resulting in opposition among some lawmakers. Sen. Sam Blakeslee, R-San Luis Obispo, said a single mid-level manager who willfully violates the provisions for just 1 million users would expose a company to $10 billion in fines.

Facebook has more than 500 million active users worldwide, though the measure would apply only to those users in California. Corbett said her measure would apply to businesses even outside the state, but Blakeslee questions that.

He also said Sacramento is the wrong place to address online privacy.

"I think it is certainly something that should be addressed at the national level. That's the appropriate place to deal with Internet laws," he said.

 

 

 

 

 

o