Privacy commissioner launches Facebook probe after law students file c


Recommended Posts

Privacy commissioner launches Facebook probe after law students file complaint

TORONTO ? The federal privacy commissioner has launched an investigation into Facebook after University of Ottawa law students complained the site breaches Canadian law by disclosing personal information to advertisers without obtaining proper consent.

The students, some who are dedicated Facebook users, allege in a complaint lodged Friday that the popular social networking website has committed 22 violations of the law.

"There's definitely some significant shortcomings with Facebook's privacy settings and with their ability to protect users," said Harley Finkelstein, 24, one of the four students behind the complaint.

"If a 14-year-old kid in Toronto decides to join Facebook, and is prompted to add a network, and he decides to join the Toronto network - because that's where he lives - does he really know that everyone on that network - by default - will have access to his personal information?"

The students drew up the complaint after comparing the company's policies and practices to Canada's Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA).

Facebook refuted the claims, saying the complaint ignores key elements of the company's policy.

"We've reviewed the complaint and found it has serious factual errors - most notably its neglect of the fact that almost all Facebook data is willingly shared by users," Facebook chief privacy officer Chris Kelly said Friday in an e-mail. "The complaint also misinterprets PIPEDA in a manner that would effectively forbid voluntary online sharing of information."

Kelly said Facebook has worked with Ontario's information and privacy commissioner to create a brochure and video that will educate users about the site's privacy controls.

"We take all complaints very seriously," said Anne-Marie Hayden, spokeswoman for the federal privacy commissioner's office. "We have no reason to believe that Facebook will not be co-operative."

The students claim Facebook deceives users about its foray into targeted advertising. They allege the company doesn't obtain proper consent - getting permission from the user to disclose personal information - and fails to give notice, meaning it doesn't clearly inform them about who is seeing their information.

"Everyone realizes the Internet is a little bit unsecure, but because it's Facebook, it lends some credibility," said Jordan Plener, 25, another of the students involved in the complaint.

Canadian law mandates that sensitive information - in Facebook, details like address, sexual preference, birthdate and school - can't be disclosed without gaining express consent. On the site, users must specifically change their settings to keep that information private.

Though Facebook has recently taken some steps to overhaul its privacy system, Plener said the main concern has been to improve esthetics.

Under law, the privacy commissioner has up to one year to investigate the complaint and make recommendations. The office plans to launch a website next week dedicated to educating youth about privacy on the Internet.

Source: The Canadian Press

---

"We've reviewed the complaint and found it has serious factual errors - most notably its neglect of the fact that almost alFacebook data is willingly shared by usersb>,"

I know several people (including myself) that don't like using our full first names on the web but are made to by face book which is visible to everyone in the same networks as you (i'm fine with just an initial being visible but still searchable by full name eg: J. Smith compared to John Smith)

"If a 14-year-old kid in Toronto decides to join Facebook, and is prompted to add a network, and he decides to join the Toronto network - because that's where he lives - does he really know that everyone on that network - by default - will have access to his personal information?"
Umm, isnt the entire point of a group on a social networking site to allow those people to contact one another. I mean...seriously.

As stated in the article information has to be willingly supplied so I don't see the big issue.

if you dont want this to happen then simply dont put in personal info problem solved.i think they were looking into making a quick buck by alleging this n that and they hoped facebook would cough up some mega bucks but the students did not do there research properly and it is true that i am uncertain of social networking sites.

I know several people (including myself) that don't like using our full first names on the web but are made to by face book which is visible to everyone in the same networks as you (i'm fine with just an initial being visible but still searchable by full name eg: J. Smith compared to John Smith)

If you don't want your full name shown, go to MySpace. Facebook was designed to be a more professional social network -- that means you can look at profiles and see *gasp* REAL names. Those who use fake ones are annoying, and it's great when Facebook cleans them up (by deleting them).

As for privacy, I have mine pretty much open to anyone. I don't have anything to hide, so I really don't care what people see of my profile. I know other people who keep theirs completely blocked and only friends can have any contact with them or see their pictures. If that's what they want to do -- cool; it can be annoying at times, though.

Anyone else have a problem with the fact that the students filing the complaint have no reason to, other than to be jack***es? They're law students and now they think they can do whatever they want. It's like they think that these privacy concerns haven't been looked at or brought up by any real lawyers yet.

-Spenser

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Yes, it was amusing at the time because even then dbrand was well known for stealing the designs of products from other companies. That’s what they do.
    • Didn’t Dbrand once complain that Casetify was ripping off their designs a well? seems pretty bad of them to try and get around Valve’s copyright this way with that in mind.
    • Dbrand thought they could get away with this Steam Machine case, Valve disagreed by David Uzondu Image via Dbrand Dbrand has cancelled its highly anticipated Companion Cube enclosure for the Valve Steam Machine, which it teased back in November of last year with a concept render and sign-up page, because it did not ask Valve for permission first before manufacturing the case. According to Dbrand, it took the "backwards approach" of building the product first before asking for permission from the copyright holder. Seven months of work went into the project, requiring over a thousand engineering hours from the design team. Workers developed forty-four sets of injection molding tools, making a unique mold for each sub-component of the crate. When the Companion Cube went live on Monday last week, it, according to Dbrand, quickly became the second-fastest-selling product in the company's fifteen-year history, racking up orders for hundreds of thousands of units. Customers eagerly bought the $129.95 deluxe edition or the bare-bones $99.95 version, which the manufacturer cheekily branded as the "Poverty Cube". It was around this time that the legal eagles at Valve descended on the accessory maker with a formal demand. The developer pointed out that the iconic block design remains protected intellectual property from the game Portal, so unlicensed sales had to stop. Dbrand said that all its pleas to salvage the project with the Valve team, including proposals to run a properly licensed release under official terms "with their blessing", fell on deaf ears, so it had no choice but to obey and remove every trace of the product from the internet. If you bought the enclosure, the company said that banks will process your refund by the end of this week, but if it still hasn't arrived in your account by then, you should not hesitate to contact support. The Steam Machine itself is a high-performance console that Valve designed directly to bring PC gaming into the living room. It was announced on 12th November 2025 (the same day Dbrand announced the Cube) and runs on the Linux-based SteamOS, the same OS that powers the Steam Deck. As for the price, due to the shortage of memory and storage chips, the hardware cost landed much higher than people were expecting, starting at $1,049 for the 512 model (without a controller) or $1,128 with the new gamepad. The premium 2 TB model pushes those prices even higher, selling at $1,349 for the standalone console and hitting $1,428 if you want the bundle.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Rookie
      Almohandis went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Apprentice
      jahara21 went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Reacting Well
      NovaEdgeX earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • Week One Done
      NovaEdgeX earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Year In
      BA the Curmudgeon earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      534
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      266
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      148
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      97
    5. 5
      macoman
      57
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!