By: Caroline Murphy
Many Facebook users will share aspects of their private lives, whether it’s by posting an Instagram worthy meal, a selfie, or details about the good and bad moments in their life. Users are apt to share private information publicly without knowing their proprietary rights to that information. Last week, many Facebook users relied on the following media post circulated around the Internet as a “legal notice” enforceable against Facebook to protect users’ privacy rights: “As of September 26th, 2015 at 01:16 a.m. Eastern standard time, I do not give Facebook or any entities associated with Facebook permission to use my pictures, information, or posts, both past and future. By this statement, I give notice to Facebook it is strictly forbidden to disclose, copy, distribute, or take any other action against me based on this profile and/or its contents. The content of this profile is private and confidential information. The violation of privacy can be punished by law (UCC 1-308- 1 1 308-103 and the Rome Statute). NOTE: Facebook is now a public entity. All members must post a note like this. If you prefer, you can copy and paste this version. If you do not publish a statement at least once it will be tactically allowing the use of your photos, as well as the information contained in the profile status updates. DO NOT SHARE. You MUST copy and paste.”
The “legal notice” warned users that if they do not repost the following information on their timeline, Facebook would have the rights to freely share their photos, information and posts. Users quickly posted this “notice” on their wall believing the message was the only mechanism to prevent Facebook from sharing their information. However, many soon learned that this message had no authority to protect their privacy because it was just another hoax on Facebook users. Last week’s “legal notice” is not the first time Facebook users have been hoaxed into believing that posting a message on their timeline was effective against Facebook. In fact, one may predict that more “legal notices” will appear on Facebook timelines. Therefore, one must ask: Why are users relying on “legal notices” over Facebook’s Terms of Service for information on privacy rights? In order to understand why users might rely on these legal notices, one must first look at Facebook’s Terms of Service privacy provisions.
When individuals subscribe to Facebook, he or she has to agree to the Terms of Service. If an individual chooses not to accept the terms, he or she cannot create a profile. Therefore, users who choose to create an account on Facebook have notice and accepted the social network’s legal terms and privacy provisions. Facebook’s Terms of Service explain that “users own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, and you can control how it is shared through your privacy and application settings.” However, by accepting these terms, users specifically give Facebook, subject to privacy and application settings, a “non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any intellectual property content that you post or in connection with Facebook.” If users want to know how much their privacy and applications protect the information on their profile, they can look at Facebook’s Data Policy.
Facebook’s Data Policy details how the site acquires users’ information through posts, photos, and activity on the social media site, and shares that data with third parties like advertisers, vendors, and analytics services. Data control seems to be what is important for Facebook’s development, not the actual pictures and postings like the “legal notice” suggests. However, users may doubt how much information is shared and to whom because they are not the recipient of the shared information. Creators of the “legal notice” capitalize on the user’s doubt by providing the “real facts” of how Facebook handles information. Last week’s legal notice suggests Facebook will act like the paparazzi and sell users’ photos and postings to parties who will redistribute private moments to a wider audience. Users that chose to post this legal notice may have failed to read and understand the relevant provisions in the Terms of Service, or failed to believe that the Terms of Service provided the real facts about how Facebook handles and shares user information. Whether it’s a failure to look at the direct source for information or a failure to trust the source, users are clearly reflecting the post-modern world where there is a general distrust in traditional sources of information.
In the context of a growing global and technological world, the Internet allows individuals to be in the active role of collecting, reporting, analyzing and sharing information. Individuals are now shifting from consumers to producers of information because they can access and gather information from several sources. Ordinary people, like users on social media sites, are no longer confined to a passive role of accepting the Internet Service Providers’ terms because they can enter the conversation by talking back to the media. In the past, Facebook users have successfully protested privacy concerns after personally seeing Facebook share their posts to a wider audience. In these protests, overwhelming numbers of users posted their dissatisfaction on their timeline and Facebook responded by changing its privacy settings to provide more user protection.
Last week’s “legal notice” appears to be similar to past protests because Facebook users are standing against Facebook by posting the notice on their timeline. However, this notice was not based on accurate information found from a user’s personal experience. Rather, the notice was based on misapplication of the Uniform Commercial Code provisions and misinformation about Facebook’s corporate development. Facebook users that chose to repost the notice clearly did not fact check the information. The sharing of misinformation on Facebook’s privacy policy displays how quickly users rely on alternative sources of legitimacy than traditional sources. With increasing options for information, users rely on information presented to them from other users rather than authoritative sources like the Terms of Service or the Uniform Commercial Code.
Facebook became public well before this post and the Uniform Commercial Code provisions listed seem to be inserted without thought of how the laws applies to social media. This “hoax” reflects the dangers of living in a post-modern world where Internet users are rejecting traditional sources of information in the wake of increasing options for information that is less subject to any rigorous fact checking or scrutiny. If there is something users can gain from this “hoax,” it is that people have to become active and critical in their thinking about information that they find on the Internet, especially when it comes to their privacy rights.
Caroline Murphy is a Staff Member of the Journal of High Technology Law. She is currently a 3L at Suffolk Law interested in practicing corporate/commercial litigation. She is also President of the Immigration Law Association.
