Did A Google Earth Mistake Cause A Couple's Brutal Murder?
Tumblr 101: Tips And Tricks To Get Started
ASK DLS: ad using photo was from a third party app, is Facebook off the hook?
Hold the phone, says Facebook. That was an embedded ad in a third-party application. As AllAboutFacebook rightly points out, I got that part wrong:
The information used for the photos were scraped while accessing Facebook applications by a third-party ad network that most likely violated Facebook's terms of service. It's a serious problem and one that I've highlighted many times.Facebook's David Swain has informed me that the uproar has led Facebook to disable two ad networks. He also took the time to offer some clarification:
These ads are not from Facebook but we are concerned about any potential threat to our users' experience. We recently had deceptive ads removed from a number of apps and prohibited two entire advertising networks from providing services to applications on Facebook Platform because they were not compliant with our policies and failed to correct their advertising practices.Ok, so Facebook isn't directly responsible. However, it's still their platform that allows the third party app developers to access your photos.
We are continuing to investigate to make sure ads that violate our policies stay off Facebook and may take further action against developers who host the ads.[...]Any ads you currently see doing this are coming from third-party ad networks and are only running within the canvas page of an application, which is controlled by third party developers rather than Facebook.
While it might lessen the sting, I still find it a little offputting that a developer would be allowed to access content I upload in this way. It's clearly a situation that Facebook needs to sort out once and for all, or it's just going to cause more controversy later.
What do you think? Sound off in the comments!
Comments
24
Subscribe to commentsmackenzieJul 17th 2009 5:28PM
If someone wants to steal your photos, they'll be doing it illegally no matter what facebook's platform is.
What I mean is, even if facebook didn't exist, if you put your photos online, someone else can illegally use them. There isn't much reason to, though. Why would they want them?
Facebook is just a medium that makes it more obvious that people are doing so, and also gives people an incentive to do so.
Dave A.Jul 17th 2009 5:44PM
Facebook needs to enforce the advertising policies they have now and, considering how concerned I am about privacy, I would like them to have an opt-IN choice for ads instead of opt-OUT. Also, considering how much security is on Facebook now, these "violations" don't surprise me.
Like Lee said in a previous post, if a friend of yours is shown in an ad, it gives the impression your friend endorses the product being advertised when it's possible they've never heard of it.
WarrenJul 17th 2009 6:02PM
Nah, I'm OK with it. Not a big deal
SimonJul 17th 2009 6:19PM
If you can't tell it was from an app, then I'd say that it's still facebook's problem. The fact that apps have such broad-ranging access disturbs me, though.
DaveJul 17th 2009 7:17PM
This is why I don't install any Apps on Facebook...while it may add to the "fun" of the site, if you read the ToS for any App you install...it's scary!
Alistair lovelessJul 17th 2009 7:55PM
Absolutely positively awful.
While i understand why they let this happen(has facebook actually made money yet?) i find it to be the ultimate stalking tool, and really I'm very put off by it to say the least.
The fact that they keep your info and everything you have done indefinitely even if you cancel your membership only smacks of data mining and unpaid market research.
Its the equivalent of keeping track of every tv show or movie you watch and which commercials you watch or skip and change channels from, and someone CHARGING you for the privilege of selling that information to ad agencies (like tivo)
Or like a blog using its comment system to show certain companies how their service, product, whatever is viewed, in terms of value, or public relations.
(i kid i love you guys)
best way to describe facebook?
"Facebook, It's like myspace, but for old people"
JoelJul 17th 2009 8:03PM
So, that adage continues-if you don't want it to be public, leave it off the internet. Facebook is more aggressive in exploiting its users, but it isn't the first and won't be the last to use peoples assumed private information for its own (revenue generating) means.
AaronJul 17th 2009 8:13PM
With every single app you allow, it tells you right upfront that you are allowing the app to access all of your profile info and your friends' profile info. Every stupid quiz, every Facebook game, etc...
I hate this, but if I don't accept it, no apps. No apps=not much fun, in my opinion. Facebook ought to allow you to profile content from use by apps, just as it allows you to block profile content from different friend groups, etc...
KevinJul 18th 2009 12:39AM
I almost *never* allow Facebook apps for this exact reason. Someone sends me a beer or a hug and I have to give the app authors access to my entire profile and everything I post? I DON'T THINK SO!
TerryJul 17th 2009 9:34PM
The issue is that apps on Facebook are like malicious programs - they get you to give them permission for their app to run, because you're friends want to send you a silly icon of a beer or something, and you then cede privacy to them. Yes it's an issue with Facebook, but it's really an issue with *you*. Stop adding silly useless apps to your facebook account without checking them out, user beware - always.
jsmorleyJul 17th 2009 10:42PM
What I think? I think you have jumped the gun and been wrong on this story from the start and over and over. You blamed Facebook, then accused them of changing your privacy settings without your permission as a face saving device. When are you going to start taking some time and getting facts before spouting off?
Walter Cronkite died tonight. You sir, about about as far from everything he stand for as can be...
Lee MathewsJul 17th 2009 10:47PM
"a face saving device." Interesting. No, it was conjecture. I didn't change my setting, yet I returned later and found it altered. Positing that Facebook may have switched this setting wholesale seemed like a pretty reasonable conclusion.
And Facebook is to blame - maybe not fully, but they don't get off scot free. Their platform and rules allowed a third party advertiser to do this. Their page layout made the ad appear like any other element on the page.
jsmorleyJul 17th 2009 11:32PM
Actually you did change your settings, you clearly said you tried to but received an error message. Any chance you might have considered that the change actually took, in spite of the error message, or when you hear hoofbeats do you always think "Hmm.. Zebras!"
Facebook is certainly not off the hook on this matter, I agree that it should never have been possible in the first place for a 3rd party to use things from your facebook profile in advertising. Fact it though, you directly accused them of doing it themselves, and pointed out the part of the TOS you could stretch to fit.
All I'm saying is that if you don't want people to look back wistfully on someone like Walter Cronkite and agree with the mainstream media that bloggers are careless with facts and don't do the hard work before publishing, try just putting the facts you have out there, do some homework, and when you are ready to follow up with further analysis, do so.
I am reminded of the "witness" in Stranger in a Strange Land who when asked what color the house in the distance was, said "It's white on this side".
wrabbitJul 18th 2009 12:19AM
Don't the various facebook apps always ask you to confirm that you agree they have access to your account. I mean I don't like it, but if you answer "yes" when the app says "confirm that you know this app will have access to all content on your account", can you really complain?
poopcommunicationsJul 18th 2009 12:46AM
Like I've always been saying,
http://facebook.eatspoop.com/
They are full of sh*t.
Jack YanJul 18th 2009 7:32AM
In your last post, you demonstrated how we can opt-out of having our photograph misused in Facebook. Really, we should not need to opt-out: this should be the default option. It demonstrates to me that Facebook was insincere about that terms and conditions’ review: on one hand, it acts all nice about the misuse of our property, while on the other hand, it sets a default position which allows just that.
j.howlettJul 18th 2009 5:28AM
i hope they get a grip
[insert anything here]Jul 18th 2009 6:30AM
... And they laughted, called me crazy, paranoid and delusional, when I left facebook two months ago!
Who's laughing now?
*serious face*
Me.
But jokes aside, s*** like this was the reason I left facebook.
Some can't live without it, I'm fine just using email. And really, I don't need to know what my friends are up to every minute. Should I have the desire to know, I can call them.
If anyone else wants to follow suit, and permanently delete themselves from facebook, see here:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=16929680703
FirstVette52Jul 18th 2009 10:47AM
Considering that a woman was murdered by her husband over her FaceBook page, the company's actions seem callously negligent, paerhaps boardering on criminal. Facebook has no business making the information (and personal photos) it is entrusted with by its members the tools of its obviously nefarious advertizers.
I'm glad I NO LONGER (as of 2 minutes from now) have a FaceBook account. If enough people pull-out, they'll get the message.
Saint SeminoleJul 18th 2009 11:53AM
Facebook *users* are at fault here, because when you sign up, the terms of service tell you right up front that *anything* you upload is basically free game. It's much more permissive than a model release form (used by professional photographers) would be.
It also tells you right up front that the terms of service may change at any time. And any time you add an app, you agree to let it use all of your stuff.
Anyone who's offended by this type of thing shouldn't be on Facebook, period.
(That's why I'm not on it.)