Facebook Privacy Notice: Fake

[snopes]

Today internet myth-busting site Snopes called shenanigans on the Facebook Privacy Notice being virally passed around by wishful Facebook users.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/violetblue...tice-fake/1370

[snopes]

Since late last month, Facebook users have been posting a legal-sounding “privacy notice.” By putting the notice on their timelines, they hope, they will become exempt from the terms and conditions of Facebook’s “Data Use Policy,” which users agree to upon initially signing up.

Unfortunately, that couldn’t be further from the truth. As the urban-legend-debunking site Snopes explains, “[T]he basic premise is false.”

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_te...debunked_.html

[snopes]

If you recently posted a "privacy notice" on Facebook claiming the government cannot disseminate your content, you've been fooled.

Contrary to what the notice says, Facebook's privacy policy was not affected when the company went public on May 18, according to the myth-buster extraordinaries at Snopes. Facebook and its users are still bound by the terms of service that every user signed in order to gain access to the site.

http://www.digtriad.com/news/local/a...Notice-Is-Fake

[Alarm]

So what you're saying is that journalists no longer do their own research..



They'd all rather just go on Snopes and getting pre-chewed for them.

[GenYus234]

That sounds like a recipe for a media fail of epic proportions if a certain pair were to set a trap on their site for lazy journalists...

[Alarm]

Originally Posted by GenYus234

That sounds like a recipe for a media fail of epic proportions if a certain pair were to set a trap on their site for lazy journalists...

They'd never do that!



I come here to find the truth, like about pirates using nursery rhymes to talk to each other in code!
True story!

[UEL]

Originally Posted by Alarm

So what you're saying is that journalists no longer do their own research..

They'd all rather just go on Snopes and getting pre-chewed for them.

Originally Posted by GenYus234

That sounds like a recipe for a media fail of epic proportions if ...for lazy journalists...

There was a CBC podcast series (6 episodes) called Spin Cycles about the media and spinning a message. One of the episodes talks directly about this phenomenon. Journalists are so pressed for copy that when given a "finished" media package, permission to use it, and a quick verification turns up no errors, it will be used.

I'll see if I can find a link to the podcasts. It was a great listen.

[Tootsie Plunkette]

Over the last few days, I and others have posted the link to the debunking on many a friends' Privacy Notice postings. Several of them have argued about it.

I was told by one in the know that the Factsboat claim of copyright on everything one posts is, to quote, "b*llsh*t"

and

you can believe Facecrooks or you can believe the UCC - your choice. I posted this because a friend of mine did so and after I had spoken (already had a phone appt) with the Mass AG's office about it and they confirmed it as Federal law trump.
Fed law trumps state law - UCC codecs, like the one listed, sets the requirements for a commercial contract. Our contract with FB is a commercial contract as they are using our membership for commercial purposes and state that they intend to use personal info gathered. Just as clauses in Federal Law forbid contracts for payment for delivery of human organs or babies, but does allow reimbusements or payments for time, housing, food, etc - UCC 1-103 1-308 provides for the validity of the statement above.
The Only way FB can operate around this is if they broke up into 50 FB sub-entities (1 per state), not commonly owned and traded info. But then they'd be liable for felony charges in MA, CA, DC, VT, and NY just to name a few more progressive states
Believe what you will - I'll go with the Feds on this one.

and

What the above does is move the onus off of FB and onto the business that use or purchase that data. Nothing above violates your TOS with FB - it just means that any other org that gets your personal info off of or via FB is "strictly prohibited from disclosing, copying, distributing, disseminating, or taking any other action against me with regard to this profile and the contents herein. The foregoing prohibitions also apply to your employee(s), agent(s), student(s) or any personnel under your direction or control"
- eg - The recipient of your info is liable - not FB

[Four Kitties]

http://content.usatoday.com/communit...ivacy-notice/1

If you recently posted a "privacy notice" on Facebook claiming the government cannot disseminate your content, you've been fooled.

Contrary to what the notice says, Facebook's privacy policy was not affected when the company went public on May 18, according to the myth-buster extraordinaries at Snopes.

Four Kitties

[snopes]

Contrary to what the notice says, Facebook's privacy policy was not affected when the company went public on May 18, according to the myth-buster extraordinaries at Snopes. Facebook and its users are still bound by the terms of service that every user signed in order to gain access to the site.

http://www.news10.net/news/national/...privacy-notice

[Chloe]

Extraordinaries?

[Amigone201]

Originally Posted by Tootsie Plunkette

you can believe Facecrooks or you can believe the UCC - your choice.

The UCC isn't saying anything. Several debunking sites are.

I posted this because a friend of mine did so and after I had spoken (already had a phone appt) with the Mass AG's office about it and they confirmed it as Federal law trump.

That's nice. And if the UCC were a law, and it had anything to do with privacy, and UCC 1-308 and 1-103 worked like you think they do, this would be relevant.

Fed law trumps state law - UCC codecs, like the one listed, sets the requirements for a commercial contract.

Well, federal law does trump state law. But the UCC isn't a federal law. And there is no state law involved here that's being trumped.

UCC 1-103 1-308 provides for the validity of the statement above.

No it doesn't. It's not a law. And even if it were, those clauses don't mean what you think they mean.

The Only way FB can operate around this is if they broke up into 50 FB sub-entities (1 per state), not commonly owned and traded info.

Uh, no. FB doesn't have to "operate around this" because "this" is total BS and doesn't even make any sense.

But then they'd be liable for felony charges in MA, CA, DC, VT, and NY just to name a few more progressive states

What? Why?

Believe what you will - I'll go with the Feds on this one.

The "feds?" What "feds?" You said you called the Massachusetts Attorney General. Who, by the way, I strongly doubt told you that this nonsense had any validity.

[Barbara]

Originally Posted by Chloe

Extraordinaries?

I believe USA Today meant "extraordinaires."

[snopes]

So a new message claims if you post a legal notice on your Facebook page, you can prevent sharing of your info.

The privacy notice essentially says: " You do not have my permission to utilize my content, comments, or photos."

But don't bother posting it: It is meaningless and won't do a thing, according to myth busters at Snopes and other watchdog sites.

http://www.kypost.com/dpps/money/con...r-info_7587862

[snopes]

You can read more about the Facebook Privacy Notice on Snopes, an excellent site that debunks hoaxes and urban legends.

http://news.yahoo.com/seen-that-priv...ignore-it.html