Nothing is EVER free..

mjm isn't far off...

You know, in a way this is a bit funny as we worry about the privacy rights in that which constitutes the online social equivalent of public restrooms where folks willfully post personal information in a prominent location for complete strangers to come and peruse, manifested in such lowest common denominator social sites as FaceBook and MySpace...and then complain that others can see it and copy and use it as they choose...

To be honest, the only people I see here complaining about it are the one's *not* using it...

Good point. For me, I don't and I suspect that a lot of others don't use these sites either.
Have a good day:)

There is nothing controversial about this. The controversy for me is when I was invited to join a service that offers no privacy protections in the first place. and then again. and then again.

What is astounding to me is people are willing to put so much personal information on a for-profit company's website. 200 million people now DO NOT CARE about their privacy, data-mining, etc.

200 Million people *want* their information shared.

*gasp*

Amazing that there are that many people out there who aren't conspiracy nuts and suffering from delusional paranoia. Go figure.

Some people, in this thread, need to get a life.

Thanks for taking the time out of your obviously fulfilling and valuable time to share such useful and informative commentary.

...

...not to mention a new skateboard...

My own personal TOS:

You hereby grant Dave an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to (a) Call me god and (b) To serve as my slave and (c) Agree with anything I say or do. Failing this will result in (a) a service fee not exceeding the amount of $20Million dollars for every infraction or (b) Jail time not exceeding 25 years.

If you choose to remove yourself from this agreement, the license granted above will automatically expire, however you acknowledge that Dave may retain archived copies of your life and soul.

I suggest that you best check with PC_Tool as according to the Copyright Office he already has the rights to that TOS.

But I am sure he has reasonable rates....LOL!

*laughs*

Yeah, cuz ya know, no-one should argue their opinions, especially when they differ from foxxy's...

Watch out, he'll call you a fanboy next. Oooohh.....

Don't worry, if anyone needs instructions, just peruse Tool's many posts. After all, he has variously referred to me as both an Apple and an AIX fanboy!

You may as well learn from the best.

LOL!

...just like my responses to the MS trolls gets me labeled a fanboy?

Heh...

Perhaps we're more alike than either of us would care to admit.

woo woo, easy there lol. I was bored this morning and felt like putting a little bullsh*t on here :) Besides, I felt like wanting to be a typical betanews poster :P

Let me first state that I don't go near these so-called social networking sites. they just seem to weird to me. They sort of remind me of the "chat rooms" of AOL in the 90's.
Having said that, I do think this TOS (and if other networking sites have similar ones the same applies) is way over the top. It seems that you basically sign your first born away (if not already copyrighted). What this shows is that people DO need to read carefully these TOS's , Eula agreements and ,,oh yeah... Read mortgage contracts before you sign your life away.
Even with this added: "You may remove your User Content from the Site at any time. If you choose to remove your User Content, the license granted above will automatically expire, however you acknowledge that the Company may retain archived copies of your User Content.", I do think that there is a potential legal problem. If you say that if you removed your user content then the license expires that means Facebook or other networking sites lose all rights to your material and that might also include archiving.
Just points out that one needs to read carefully these agreements and if you still agree then you get what you deserve.
I realize that many may disagree and I respect the differences of opinion but that is mine and I am not changing it..unless you pay me.
Everyone have a nice day:)

"Just points out that one needs to read carefully these agreements and if you still agree then you get what you deserve."

Ah! My point exactly, or more precisely, an argument for it.

What would one "get" for accepting the terms? What's the "Big Bad™" that's going to happen?

Keep in mind, these are people who *want* to share their information, and *want* more users to join the site....

Reading before accepting anything is always good advice, and I would recommend it for *any* service, but the implication you and others are making is that there is some great danger to using FB.....I'm just wondering what you all think that danger is?

Good question and the bottom line and the answer is Who Knows? But when you write a TOS as stringent as theirs and maybe others, I would be suspicious.
When you write a TOS that basically says that When you post it now belongs to us, you begin to wonder what uses they would put your posting to and, since you have given up your right to disagree, they can do whatever they want. Maybe harmless but maybe not and that's why I put this in the category that I did. I assume you weren't referring to Eula's or mortgage contracts so I'll leave them out.
Most TOSs are the usual Bs- don't use foul language and be respectful and then the company ignores it which also raises questions that haven't been address in a legal way concerning to what extent is a site that spells out behavior but doesn't respond when that behavior shows up is liable.
If you look at News or business forums, you don't see TOS's like this and if you de-activate your account, all your material disappears. Maybe it's archived. Don't know. When you write a detailed TOS like this one that spells out what they might do with your material then it begs the question "Why?" on what should be a harmless site.
So when I say 'you get what you deserve", I simply mean that since you have signed away all your rights then if the company uses the material in a way you don't like too bad.
My opinion and maybe it's wrong and the site is harmless but then why have such an all-inclusive TOS that the person gives up all rights other than to sign up or not?
Have a nice day:)

Sorry about the length but here is a sort of aside to this- If you go to the Patriots forum which has a pretty stringent TOS regarding behavior. The problem was that the site was erratic, at best, at enforcing their own TOS and also tended, when they did step in, to delete the entire thread not just the offending party. Now if you think things get nasty here, this is nothing to compared to the Patriots site during the season. This issue ended up in the lap of the NYTimes since they own the Boston Globe and complaints were filed and the site has been more straight forward in enforcing their TOS and limiting their action to only the offending party.

"Good question and the bottom line and the answer is Who Knows? "

I'm all for "assume the worst", but it gets a little out of hand when taken to extremes such as implying something improper could be done with information explicitly provided for the purposes of making public to be shared, which is exactly what facebook exists to do.

In fact, it actually *protects* users. Think about it: If someone claims defamation, it's on FB, not the user who posted the content, right?

If you are worried about your personal details becoming public, FB isn't even in the equation. You wouldn't consider it as even a vague possibility.

Don't worry, I'm not trying to imply you can't be of the opinion that you are, I am just exercising my right to try and change it...without opening my wallet. ;)

Laughing.. anyone can always try to change my mind and oftentimes I do. You do make some good points but since I don't use these sites, I was struck at how mind-numbing the detailed TOS was and simple asked "Why".

As far as the protection point, that may or may not be the case. Courts tend to be fickle when it comes to the internet and ..well.. just about everything else.
That was a freebie:) since I sold the last of stock and feel pretty secure but I reserve the right to, at some future date, at least beg for some money.

Finally, this discussion shows what Betanews could be. PC and myself engaged in a discussion that compared to the usual might come across as valium-like but, maybe, we both came away with a wider perspective. Maybe not..I'll have to check my TOS.:)
That's it for me (cue the applause sign)
Everyone have a nice day:)

Sorry Tool, but its not quite that simple.

Sure many sites have similar usage policies - and they also create phony profiles representing themselves as another whose picture they use.

If they had simply wanted to make exception for the issues you think are reasonable, they certainly could have...and limited it to those uses.

But they specifically did not!

In fact: "...and (b) to use your name, likeness and image for any purpose, including commercial or advertising, each of (a) and (b) on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof."

This goes far beyond what you stated that is reasonable and prudent to fascilitate the operation of their site. In fact, there is no need for this, as there is plenty of open sourced material designed specifically for such use available to them.

And it is also inappropriate to make the changes without public notice in advance, or of making users aware of such changes and requiring them to re-opt in with the option to refuse and remove their material.

But why do that when they can simply change it and let them become aware of the changes through stories like this?

But I have to agree in one very large sense: anyone who is foolish enough to use those sites asks for exactly what they get. If they want (limited) control over their material, either don't post it or establish their own website and visibly watermark everything.

Dude,

It really is quite that simple. The one issue you bring up that doesn't fall under site operation is for the purposes of advertisement (getting more users).

Somehow I think that the more users facebook has, the more useful the site becomes, as it becomes ever more likely the people you know will be on it.

Wait, I guess that is related to the operation of the site then...

But don't go calling me a fanboy quite yet...I still despise MySpace with a passion that is unspeakable. :)

You're safe as long as this thread stays away from "Windows".

;-)

That's OK, folks, including you, still think I am an Apple fanboy when my primary issue is simply all of the BS posted by the anti-Apple fanboys. I mean, if they want to trash them, at least have an idea what the facts are and don't trash them for their own emotionally manufactured crap. But then, at least half of the folks here still think the Mac is something other than a PC - not to mention a "monopoly". LOL!

Cuz I'm a MS fanboy... (Who can't stand Windows Live, IE, or how the Vista launch was handled)

*yawn*

Whatever.

Yeah - just TRY to list any of the myriad flaws inherent to Windows.
Just try...

LOL!

*laughing*

That's not what you want. What you want is for me to agree with your asinine ideals as to what MS should do in regards to security regardless of it's effects on the marketability or compatibility. I agree with the ideals, I simply recognized the hurdles to getting there that you seem to ignore.

There is *no* doubt in my mind that the way Windows handles pretty much *everything* could be improved...vastly. The problem is that it cannot be done in one fell swoop, as you seem to think it should be done. In terms of practicality and harsh reality, if Microsoft were to do such a thing, no-one would buy it...regardless of their "choke hold" on the market.

Look at how the relatively minor (by comparison) compatibility issues in Vista sparked blow-back with the addition of something as minor as UAC to try and get developers to code without requiring admin privileges. Can you even imagine what true adherence to time-tested security and reliability measures would have on compatibility? UAC *alone* has exposed more software that simply does not in any way adhere to these standards than years of "best practices" PR.

Your ideals are great. The problem is working them into reality and our views on how that should be (or even could be) done.

I freely admit the current state sucks when compared to the ideals, but calling an improvement an improvement isn't being a shill, it's recognizing progress in the right direction. It's a damned sight better than "LOL"ing and merely pointing out the obvious.

Nonsense.

Vista almost singlehandledly did exactly what you claim could never be done - namely it broke application compatibility almost across the board!

Not to mention abandoned hardware and I/O support for many (expensive)legacy data acquistion systems... So there is plenty of reason for many not to upgrade simply because MS decides they should!

MS could EASILY set a hard sunset date for support of technology with ADEQUATE advance notice. Had they done this at the launch of say W2k, they could have easily dealt with fundamental issues of FUBAR technology such as ActiveX as well as other fundamental issues with the release of say, Vista.

With adequate notice, a transition is not that insurmountable - provided they still make available older copies of the OS after the upgrade to accomodate those who either cannot or choose not to upgrade to the latest greatest incarnation of Windows! And why should this still be an issue?????

The problem is that MS can't even handle small issues such as hardware compatibility where we watch as factual issues of whether fraud was committed no longer linger - but simply where the division of culpability for the purposes of paying damages is settled!

"Vista almost singlehandledly did exactly what you claim could never be done - namely it broke application compatibility almost across the board!"

Bull. Pure and simple.

...and illustrates my point perfectly. This exaggeration is nothing compared to the blow-back if they had actually "cut the cord".

I agree wholeheartedly on a sunset date, other than that it could potentially put the "deadline" before the "product"...which is something MSFT has not had luck with...ever. ;)

Thanks.

"Bull".
Really?

It ABSOLUTELY DID on high end CAD, CAM, and major legacy data acquisition programs and hardware used in manufacturing and academic and scientific research.

I really don't care about your games or trivial apps!

"It ABSOLUTELY DID on high end CAD, CAM, and major legacy data acquisition programs"

That's a far sight from "across the board" which would seem to imply both the high *and* low end, would it not?

IMO? Those high-end apps shouldn't be running in windows at this point anyway.

To be frank, Microsoft should make WS2k8 the last server OS based on the current code. I am certain you agree with that. I also think they should drop "business/enterprise" from the "consumer" OS line, because it satisfies the requirements of neither. Their next server / business OS/client *should* be 100% in line with all security and privacy "Best Practices". (At which point they should "sunset" the existing...updating until that point is reached)

That said, the Consumer driven client (Vista, win7, etc..) needs to be updated for MSFT to remain relevant in that market, and the only way to do that and still maintain it's share is to go about it slowly. Sudden changes affecting compatibility (as seen in Vista, less to in the 95-XP transition, but still there) are serious detriments to them being able to so this. Too fast, and they lose share (and income). Too slow and they fall behind. It's a tight-rope. Sure, they could develop completely secure OS along side their windows client, positioned to take over when done, but it would never fly. The consumer would stick with what they know...even if it means being less secure (not that the consumer has ever shown a great deal of enthusiasm for security anyway....)

Everyone grab hold of something...

We agree.

(...he said, cautiously looking around...noting the world has not come to an inglorious end......yet... ;-)

RE: PC_Tool

"*laughing*

That's not what you want..."

.........................

The problem is the segment of the market in which I play is DOMINATED by the foibles where one can only "LOL" or storm about cussing MS as the problems are, and continue to be, formidable, and where the improvements matter little.

Its all a matter of perspective - and I only wish I had the luxury of being able to marvel at the small achievements.

...
And what is worse is that this 'new improved'(sic) site format that compress remarks into 1/3 the space and prevents you seeing the thread to which you are responding as you respond, and then posts it in an utterly disjointed fashion, reminds me of a new release of Windows!!!

;-) ;-) Sorry Tool, I KNOW that seems like a cheap shot, but it genuinely does!!!!

Heh..

Sadly, re the site, I agree completely.

I was hoping they would fix the threading, but have yet to see any indication of that whatsoever, hence the "@whomever" on my posts in threads that contain more than one other poster.

"the changes were made to deal with the face that many pieces of information"

Perhaps that should be "fact"?

Every social networking site, hell, even sites such as BetaNews I am sure, have similar statements regarding user-generated content their sites.

This is nothing new, and I really don't see the problem. If you sign up with anything you don't want made public, you're an idiot. Simple as that.

Most of it simply allows them to allow *users* to post, repost, edit, and tag content posted by *other* users. (Without the wording in the first section, you would *not* be allowed to tag photos not posted by you or copy them to your profile, for example).

Talk about overblowing something that is not only common, but useful and an integral part of "social networking".

That said, they could simply state that all content posted to the site that doesn't already claim a registered copyright falls under some sort of general public license, and can no longer be claimed as owned by *anyone*. That would probably be a lot less Evil™ looking and have the same basic effect on functionality.

This comment © 2009, PC_Tool. ('shya...whatever...)

misleading title as stated by @mdobrofsky, but really... f*ck facebook for doing this, i knew there was a reason i only gave them my name, and thankfully thats all they got, just be smart people if you happen to enjoy your privacy, think ahead

Okay, after reading this article where/what is the backpedaling Facebook is suppose to be doing?

misleading title

No, actually, the original headline was correct -- and at 10:17 last night facebook annoucned that they're going back to the old ToS while they figure out how to make things better. I've thrown in a line on the article to indicate that, but our press deadline didn't mesh well with their timing. Such is life on the interwebs.