<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Trust, control, and scraping Facebook</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.talesfromthe.net/blog/?feed=rss2&#038;p=8" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.talesfromthe.net/blog/?p=8</link>
	<description>a work in progress</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Sep 2010 17:37:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jon</title>
		<link>http://www.talesfromthe.net/blog/?p=8&#038;cpage=1#comment-11</link>
		<dc:creator>Jon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jan 2008 00:25:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.talesfromthe.net/blog/?p=8#comment-11</guid>
		<description>Thomas Otter suggests on Vendorprisey that &lt;a href=&quot;http://theotherthomasotter.wordpress.com/2008/01/08/facebook-scoble-manifestos-and-european-privacy-law/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Scoble&#039;s actions may have violated EU privacy laws&lt;/a&gt;.  Scoble and several others not-so-helpfully weigh in showing what seems to be a lack of understanding of EU law and gratuitous anti-European comments (which also show up on &lt;a href=&quot;http://blogs.zdnet.com/Howlett/?p=276&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Dennis Howlett&#039;s post&lt;/a&gt; picking the story up).

Thus far I haven&#039;t seen anybody ask the related question of whether Scoble&#039;s actions if left unchecked would have caused &lt;i&gt;Facebook&lt;/i&gt; to violate EU privacy law ... it&#039;s a complicated issue indeed.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thomas Otter suggests on Vendorprisey that <a href="http://theotherthomasotter.wordpress.com/2008/01/08/facebook-scoble-manifestos-and-european-privacy-law/" rel="nofollow">Scoble&#8217;s actions may have violated EU privacy laws</a>.  Scoble and several others not-so-helpfully weigh in showing what seems to be a lack of understanding of EU law and gratuitous anti-European comments (which also show up on <a href="http://blogs.zdnet.com/Howlett/?p=276" rel="nofollow">Dennis Howlett&#8217;s post</a> picking the story up).</p>
<p>Thus far I haven&#8217;t seen anybody ask the related question of whether Scoble&#8217;s actions if left unchecked would have caused <i>Facebook</i> to violate EU privacy law &#8230; it&#8217;s a complicated issue indeed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jon</title>
		<link>http://www.talesfromthe.net/blog/?p=8&#038;cpage=1#comment-9</link>
		<dc:creator>Jon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Jan 2008 23:57:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.talesfromthe.net/blog/?p=8#comment-9</guid>
		<description>Ed Felten weighs in with &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?p=1246&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;It&#039;s not about data ownership&lt;/a&gt; on Freedom to Tinker, making the excellent point that neither Scoble nor Facebook nor Scoble&#039;s friends &quot;own&quot; the data. 
&lt;blockquote&gt;Where did we get this idea that facts about the world must be owned by somebody? Stop and consider that question for a minute, and you’ll see that ownership is a lousy way to think about this issue. In fact, much of the confusion we see stems from the unexamined assumption that the facts in question are owned.
....

Once we give up the idea that the fact of Robert Scoble’s friendship with (say) Lee Aase, or the fact that that friendship has been memorialized on Facebook, has to be somebody’s exclusive property, we can see things more clearly. Scoble and Aase both have an interest in the facts of their Facebook-friendship and their real friendship (if any). Facebook has an interest in how its computer systems are used, but Scoble and Aase also have an interest in being able to access Facebook’s systems.... 

How can all of these interests best be balanced in principle? What rights do Scoble, Aase, and Facebook have under existing law? What should public policy says about data access? All of these are difficult questions whose answers we should debate. Declaring these facts to be property doesn’t resolve the debate — all it does is rule out solutions that might turn out to be the best.
&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Fred von Lohmann of EFF agrees in a comment that there is no ownership of the data, and adds
&lt;blockquote&gt;But even if there were, it wouldn’t answer these questions. Consider sites like Flickr. Unlike the facts in Facebook, the photos on Flickr are plainly copyrighted works. But that doesn’t tell you anything about whether the copyright owner is entitled to access Flickr’s servers to make copies of the photos.

Your ownership in an intangible (copyright or patent) does not come with any right to access particular copies of it that reside elsewhere. Flickr can delete all of your photos, and if you failed to make back-ups, nothing in copyright law would provide you recourse.&lt;/blockquote&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ed Felten weighs in with <a href="http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?p=1246" rel="nofollow">It&#8217;s not about data ownership</a> on Freedom to Tinker, making the excellent point that neither Scoble nor Facebook nor Scoble&#8217;s friends &#8220;own&#8221; the data. </p>
<blockquote><p>Where did we get this idea that facts about the world must be owned by somebody? Stop and consider that question for a minute, and you’ll see that ownership is a lousy way to think about this issue. In fact, much of the confusion we see stems from the unexamined assumption that the facts in question are owned.<br />
&#8230;.</p>
<p>Once we give up the idea that the fact of Robert Scoble’s friendship with (say) Lee Aase, or the fact that that friendship has been memorialized on Facebook, has to be somebody’s exclusive property, we can see things more clearly. Scoble and Aase both have an interest in the facts of their Facebook-friendship and their real friendship (if any). Facebook has an interest in how its computer systems are used, but Scoble and Aase also have an interest in being able to access Facebook’s systems&#8230;. </p>
<p>How can all of these interests best be balanced in principle? What rights do Scoble, Aase, and Facebook have under existing law? What should public policy says about data access? All of these are difficult questions whose answers we should debate. Declaring these facts to be property doesn’t resolve the debate — all it does is rule out solutions that might turn out to be the best.
</p></blockquote>
<p>Fred von Lohmann of EFF agrees in a comment that there is no ownership of the data, and adds</p>
<blockquote><p>But even if there were, it wouldn’t answer these questions. Consider sites like Flickr. Unlike the facts in Facebook, the photos on Flickr are plainly copyrighted works. But that doesn’t tell you anything about whether the copyright owner is entitled to access Flickr’s servers to make copies of the photos.</p>
<p>Your ownership in an intangible (copyright or patent) does not come with any right to access particular copies of it that reside elsewhere. Flickr can delete all of your photos, and if you failed to make back-ups, nothing in copyright law would provide you recourse.</p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tales from the Net &#187; New members for DataPortability.org</title>
		<link>http://www.talesfromthe.net/blog/?p=8&#038;cpage=1#comment-7</link>
		<dc:creator>Tales from the Net &#187; New members for DataPortability.org</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Jan 2008 01:16:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.talesfromthe.net/blog/?p=8#comment-7</guid>
		<description>[...] the aftermath of the Scoble/Facebook scraping brouhaha, DataPortability.org (&#8221;sharing is caring&#8221;) has announced that individuals from Google, [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] the aftermath of the Scoble/Facebook scraping brouhaha, DataPortability.org (&#8221;sharing is caring&#8221;) has announced that individuals from Google, [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jon</title>
		<link>http://www.talesfromthe.net/blog/?p=8&#038;cpage=1#comment-5</link>
		<dc:creator>Jon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Jan 2008 05:24:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.talesfromthe.net/blog/?p=8#comment-5</guid>
		<description>Dare&#039;s got &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.25hoursaday.com/weblog/2008/01/07/BreakingTheSocialContractMyDataIsNotYourData.aspx rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;an excellent followup post&lt;/a&gt;, including this:
&lt;blockquote&gt;When I entire my personally identifiable information (PII) into Facebook, I am entering into a social contract with two entities. I am trusting Facebook to protect my data so it is safe from malicious hackers and not sell it to malicious third parties like spammers or telemarketers, in return I provide Facebook with accurate data which improves their service and the user experience of the people in my social network.  In addition, I am implicitly trusting the people in my social network not to abuse the privilege of having my personal information (e.g. by prank calling my cell phone, giving my personal details to third parties I don&#039;t trust).&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Well said.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dare&#8217;s got <a href="http://www.25hoursaday.com/weblog/2008/01/07/BreakingTheSocialContractMyDataIsNotYourData.aspx rel="nofollow">an excellent followup post</a>, including this:</p>
<blockquote><p>When I entire my personally identifiable information (PII) into Facebook, I am entering into a social contract with two entities. I am trusting Facebook to protect my data so it is safe from malicious hackers and not sell it to malicious third parties like spammers or telemarketers, in return I provide Facebook with accurate data which improves their service and the user experience of the people in my social network.  In addition, I am implicitly trusting the people in my social network not to abuse the privilege of having my personal information (e.g. by prank calling my cell phone, giving my personal details to third parties I don&#8217;t trust).</p></blockquote>
<p>Well said.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
