[tokenadult]

On what legal basis would you expect a financial penalty for a free, voluntary-participation online service that did the things that the FTC found that Facebook did? What does the law on the subject give the FTC authority to do?

[sunchild]

The FTC seems to think that Facebook lured consumers in by misrepresenting how it uses consumer personal information. That would be a violation of the FTC Act.

[_delirium]

They knowingly lied to their customers, if these allegations are true.

[ceejayoz]

Facebook users are not Facebook's customers.

[rhizome]

OK, Sheldon. Facebook knowingly lied to people subject to their privacy policy, TOU and TOS (where applicable).

[FaceKicker]

Is anyone else really tired of reading this "you're not the customer, you're the product" platitude every day, especially in contexts like here where it's totally irrelevant? Yes, we get it, Facebook isn't directly making money off their users.

[anigbrowl]

Yes, but apparently people need constant reminders Facebook users are essentially getting a service for free, so they're not consumers in the same sense as someone who pays for a service and is dissatisfied by the treatment hey receive at the hands of the vendor.

[rhizome]

The law has long been castrated on your points. The legal basis would be, of course, that private information is property, but that one doesn't exist in this country (yet?).

[tbrownaw]

The legal basis would be, of course, that private information is property, but that one doesn't exist in this country (yet?).

Trying to apply rules made for physical items (if I take it you don't have it any more) to things that act completely differently is a really bad idea.

[rhizome]

Humans are smart, they don't have to use the exact same laws. Like I implied, the laws don't actually exist in the US.

Would it make a difference if I had said "something akin" to personal information as property? I mean, we're reading this story, so personal information has currency in some way, right? Seems to me that with some political will that the laws can be nudged further in favor of the user.

[dreamdu5t]

You choose to divulge any information you consider to be private. Absent an actual formal agreement contingent upon giving that information (which an internal policy is most definitely not), I have no obligation to restrict who I share the information you chose to share with me.

Unless you're going to argue that you own anything you happen to know, even after other people know it? Unless you're going to argue that a posted policy on a free website constitutes a binding agreement?

[rhizome]

I have no obligation to restrict who I share the information you chose to share with me.

If that was true in all cases, the story we're commenting on wouldn't exist.

[dreamdu5t]

How is that? Please explain how I am obligated to restrict information people freely share with me?

[rhizome]

In your example, in this context, there would be no privacy violation possible.

[jellicle]

The FTC Act: "Unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are hereby declared unlawful."

The FTC is empowered to enforce that with a variety of penalties, including extensive fines.

[anigbrowl]

And how much did you pay Facebook for the privilege of using their service?