Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Let's get real. (Score 1) 426

That's one theory. However, if you are not sending them a letter, but sending it to someone by means of them, then they are closer to a common carrier, without an interest in your content. That's a model that would work without all the ick factor, at least from my perspective, and I'm happy to read the ads and buy the occasional thing I care about to support this functionality.

Comment Re:This is a new level of low (Score 1) 426

It's not about cheap, it's about convenient. Even if FB were for pay, it allows for a central point of contact with content-management capabilities oriented around sharing with specific friends and communities. It's built for this sort of application. Throwing up a custom website isn't. And the user's laziness notwithstanding, it doesn't relieve FB from an expectation that if they offer the service for communication in this way, that they take care with people's data. They bill themselves as an infrastructure, a sort of application-level service provider. They're not a media broker, at least that's not how they presented themselves to me when I joined.

Comment Re:nobody cares. (or should) (Score 1) 426

Technically, this would fall under the terms where the poster (your "friend") warrants that he has the legal right to post. So essentially, FB goes beyond their requirement by giving you means of unlinking such images from your account, so it's just that user's say-so. And you can use a DMCA take-down notice / copyright violation report to get Facebook to remove it from others' profile. That's not relevant to your own use of FB under their TOS. There are existing legal remedies for others posting your pictures, depending on context, no different from someone posting your picture on their own personal website.

Comment Re:Naive thinking... (Score 1) 426

This is irrelevant. They already had a clause in the privacy policy that excludes backups as technically infeasible to delete. "your data may persist..." yadda yadda. That was always true. Backup tapes and archives are quite different than accessible, saleable content.

Comment Re:No different to any google service (Score 1) 426

But they did promise this. There's a whole section where they except backups from your content privacy, in that they can't reasonably technically un-persist your stuff. But until this, they were actually expected to remove the content. And it's not analogous to removing your pictures from other people's pages as if this was some laborious process. Those pictures are references, and if they remove the core item from their database, it simply won't show up in the database requests anymore, and therefore won't show up. And if that's not how they implmeneted it, then that's still their problem, because the technical solution could be easy.

Comment Re:No different to any google service (Score 1) 426

Because you are keeping your private/personal information and selectively showing it to others. The fact that I have a private (physical) photo album doesn't mean I don't show it to friends, but I don't expect Kodak (for instance) to have the rights to use and/or sell and/or indirectly profit from the content they processed.

Private doesn't mean not-shown, it means I, the content owner gets to choose.

Slashdot Top Deals

Thus mathematics may be defined as the subject in which we never know what we are talking about, nor whether what we are saying is true. -- Bertrand Russell