游戏邦在:
杂志专栏:
gamerboom.com订阅到鲜果订阅到抓虾google reader订阅到有道订阅到QQ邮箱订阅到帮看

Quinn Emanuel: facebook用户隐私政策有些表述含糊

发布时间:2010-10-19 14:54:02 Tags:,,,

本周,社交网站Facebook的政策问题再次引起了广大应用开发商的关注。在与社交网站Facebook合作的众多应用开发商中,有些茫然不知道自己的责任,有些不明白自己为什受到了强烈的谴责,还有的些则根本不清楚Facebook政策的要求。

facebook

facebook

此前,社交网站Facebook也遇过类似问题。其中的关键就是用户在注册Facebook账户时,有一条关于发送用户信息的条款。通过这一条款,第三方广告商可以使用用户最后访问的页面链接,其中就包含了该用户的ID等用户信息。

今天Inside Facebook意在深入探讨这一问题。另外,游戏和应用开发商可也有一些疑问:究竟哪些资料是属于Facebook的?在涉及Facebook政策执行时,开发商的法律权利和义务又是什么?

因此,我们电话连线Quinn Emanue律师事务所的知识产权律师Claude Stern谈论一下这个话题。虽然Stern不愿透露其接待的反对Facebook现行政策的客户姓名。但我们在客户名单中发现谷歌和Zynga长期以来都是该事务所的客户,另外还有ConnectU等社交网站公司。

Inside Social Game(ISG):Facebook公司政策和Facebook用户信息分享有什么问题吗?

Claude Stern(CS):我认为Facebook的政策本身就是一个问题。如果细看Facebook的服务条款,我们可以看到很多政策条款和子政策条款与Facebook向游戏开发商和用户宣扬的并不一致。换句话说,Facebook并没有明确区分什么是属于Facebook所有的信息资料,而什么又是别人所有的信息资料。

Facebook的用户服务条款中提到,用户拥有其放置在页面中信息的所有权。但同样在Facebook的开发商服务条款中又提到,Facebook给予应用开发商转移和使用某些征得用户同意的用户信息。因此很多人对Facebook是否有权处理用户数据产生了质疑。而另一方面Facebook又表示自己有权决定是否使用和删除用户数据。

ISG:您对Facebook关于隐私问题的答复怎么看?Facebook应该怎么做呢?

CS:我认为现在Facebook正在运用一切手段控制媒介。我指的并不是您这种媒介,而是指社交网站。从Facebook条款中我们可以看出Facebook试图利用用户和游戏开发商。Facebook自称对用户数据的所有权其实可能并不受法律保护。

在Facebook中,用户页面信息属于该用户。这样一来,该用户有权告知应用开发商是否可以使用这些数据。

首先,我认为应当区分清楚用户的利益,而不是Facebook的利益。Facebook是否想控制社交网站和媒介?Facebook是否拥有权利处理那些并未被授权的信息资料呢?

ISG:您认为应如何解决这一问题?

CS:最理想化的解决方式是举办一场会议,每个人发表一下最理想的解决方式:用户需要的是拥有掌握自己信息的权利……

ISG:现在似乎很多人反对Facebook,您觉得应该如何调和这些问题呢?

CS:尽管Facebook的确将用户信息泄露给了第三方,但其实这些信息还可以通过很多其他方式获得。而我的问题是,既然用户在加入Faceboo时已经允许该网站使用用户信息,那当信息真的被使用时又有什么坏处呢?我认为用户应该将Facebook政策和现实相结合。(本文由游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译)

Following the suspension of all LOLapps games and apps on Friday by Facebook, the issue of Facebook policy has once again caught the attention of the broader developer community. Some now feel uncertain of what their responsibilities are, how harshly they may be penalized for infractions, and, in some cases, exactly what the policy calls for.

Facebook has encountered similar problems before. The problem, in this case and others, is the accepted technical way of sending information on what a user is doing. Third party advertisers are able to use the link from a user’s last visited page, which contains a user ID that can then be correlated with other information the third party has on a user.

There’s much more to this issue, so we’ve delved into it more deeply today on Inside Facebook. Game and app developers may have another question, though: what are Facebook’s, and their own, legal rights and responsibilities when it comes to enforcement of policy?

We got Claude Stern, the co-chair of law firm Quinn Emanuel’s intellectual property practice, on the phone to help cover some of the issues. While Stern wouldn’t share the names of any clients opposing Facebook’s current policies, his firm lists prominent names including Google and Zynga as current or former clients — and of course, the firm was shown in the new film Following the suspension of all LOLapps games and apps on Friday by Facebook, the issue of Facebook policy has once again caught the attention of the broader developer community. Some now feel uncertain of what their responsibilities are, how harshly they may be penalized for infractions, and, in some cases, exactly what the policy calls for.

Facebook has encountered similar problems before. The problem, in this case and others, is the accepted technical way of sending information on what a user is doing. Third party advertisers are able to use the link from a user’s last visited page, which contains a user ID that can then be correlated with other information the third party has on a user.

There’s much more to this issue, so we’ve delved into it more deeply today on Inside Facebook. Game and app developers may have another question, though: what are Facebook’s, and their own, legal rights and responsibilities when it comes to enforcement of policy?

We got Claude Stern, the co-chair of law firm Quinn Emanuel’s intellectual property practice, on the phone to help cover some of the issues. While Stern wouldn’t share the names of any clients opposing Facebook’s current policies, his firm lists prominent names including Google and Zynga as current or former clients — and of course, the firm was shown in the new film The Social Network, representing ConnectU.

Inside Social Games: What is at issue with Facebook’s policies and the sharing of user data?

Claude Stern: This is what I think is an issue. If one looks at the Facebook terms of service, one will note that there are a variety of policies and sub-policies, that are not necessarily consistent with policies they’ve promulgated to developers or users. Put another way, it’s not quite clear that Facebook is clearly identifying what it believes is its information, and what is the information of others.

If one looks at the Facebook terms of service in relation to users, they seem to say that the user owns the information they place on their page. By the same token, if one looks on the terms of service of the developers page, those various provisions also seem to give the application developer the right to transfer, or the right to use, certain customer information with the approval of the customer.

But there is an area where it seems fair to say that I think there is widespread disagreement as to whether Facebook has the right to claim it owns certain information in regards to user data. On the one hand Facebook seems to be saying it has the right to determine whether or not user data is used or disposed of, even if the user believes otherwise.

ISG: So what do you see Facebook doing in response to privacy concerns? What should it do?

CS: I think Facebook is doing whatever it can, lawfully or not, to try to control the media. Not you the media, but its own media, and the social network. It seems, from looking at the terms and provisions that it tries to impose on both users and developers, that it is laying claim to data that the law may not otherwise give them a right to.

According to Facebook, the information on a user’s page belongs to a user. Presumably a user has the right to tell application developers they can use the data.

I think what has to be made clear is what people’s interests are. It’s not clear what Facebook’s interest is. Are they simply trying to keep control of the social network and media, and hold onto data that they’re otherwise not entitled to? Or is Facebook worried they might be held liable by privacy laws, and thus doing things that they they think are in their best interest, but are considered abusive by others?

ISG: What would be your solution to the problem?

CS:  In an ideal world, there’d be a conference where everyone could try to hash out what’s best for everyone. What the user wants is the right to control their own data…

ISG: There seem to be a number of opposing forces pushing at Facebook. How should they reconcile those things?

CS: Although it’s true that Facebook pushes out the data to people, that same data can be obtained in a variety of ways. One of the questions is, it seems to me that if the user has approved the use of identity, I don’t know why it’s bad for it to be used.

I think they should conform the policy to reality.(Source:Inside Social Games)


上一篇:

下一篇: