December 3, 2007
Facebook Riles Privacy Advocates
By Tom Ryan
Thousands of Facebook users were shocked in recent weeks to find their online purchases were revealed to their friends. The social networking site has since softened its new advertising feature, but not before stirring up a brouhaha.
The program, called Beacon, informs Facebook users’ friends when purchases are made on certain online retail sites, including Amazon, Zappos, Travelocity and Fandango. In some cases, friends were informed exactly what item was purchased, ruining some holiday gift-giving plans. The group MoveOn.Org Civic Action started a petition, signed by 50,000 protesting the program on privacy grounds.
Under a change initiated late last week, users have to explicitly authorize the publication of each message. Previously, messages would automatically publish unless the user said “no.”
Beacon is viewed as an important test of online tracking. Companies like Google, AOL and Microsoft routinely track online behavior and send out ads based on the sites people visit and searches conducted, but Facebook took it to a much more personal and transparent level.
Facebook executives view Beacon as an extension of the type of book and movie recommendations that members routinely volunteer on their profile pages. Beacon notices are “based on getting into the conversations that are already happening between people,” founder Mark Zuckerberg said when he introduced the program on Nov. 6.
“Whenever we innovate and create great new experiences and new features, if they are not well understood at the outset, one thing we need to do is give people an opportunity to interact with them,” Chamath Palihapitiya, a vice president at Facebook, told the New York Times. “After a while, they fall in love with them.”
Some ad execs poked fun at Facebook users who openly share their love lives and drunken exploits.
“Isn’t this community getting a little hypocritical?” Chad Stoller, director of emerging platforms at Organic, a digital advertising agency, told the Times. “Now, all of a sudden, they don’t want to share something?”
But some of the high school and college-age Facebook users felt a line had been crossed.
“We know we don’t have a right to privacy, but there still should be a certain morality here, a certain level of what is private in our lives,” Tricia Bushnell, a 25-year-old in Los Angeles told the Times. “Just because I belong to Facebook, do I now have to be careful about everything else I do on the internet?”
While applauding the changes to Beacon, Charlene Li, an analyst at Forrester Research, told the Financial Times that Facebook needs to regain the trust of users and privacy advocates. “I believe some privacy advocates will continue to agitate for the full dismantling of the Beacon program,” Ms Li said.
Discussion Question: Do you think Facebook crossed a line in allowing online purchases of its users to be revealed to their friends? Do you agree with Facebooks’ management that the sharing of such consumer information will eventually be welcomed by users?
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Poll
Did Facebook cross the line? I’d rather say that they made this move inappropriately. The difference is that I do agree with Facebook that something VERY similar to this program COULD work, but it needs to be presented properly and at least start with more-than-ample opt-out options.
Facebook’s right that this is a huge marketing/advertising opportunity AND that their customers could indeed benefit from this. But they didn’t properly sell those benefits to those users.
Targeted ads based on private history are dicey stuff. Sharing private purchases with everyone on a friends’ list is an order of magnitude touchier.
It needs restrictions (for gift giving or other sensitive situations), but a modified version of this might work well, say one year from now. The prospect of having a surprise birthday gift ruined is one thing. What about the married customer whose bride is alerted that the customer is purchasing lots of red roses or diamond earings, that the spouse never sees? Lots of dangerous situations potentially there….
I personally think that this was a major breach of etiquette. A huge faux-pas. But then again, I believe in privacy. Perhaps my kids who are aged 30 and under would feel differently. The question is…really, why didn’t they ask their members first before sharing the info? Wouldn’t that have given a choice? Wouldn’t that have empowered the members? Maybe they would have said “Sure, why not.” Many people make purchases that they wouldn’t want shared with their friends…maybe Facebook just didn’t think it through and only looked at the revenue potential.
Definitely crossed the line. However, it’s not too late for Facebook to prevent harm–the brand is so strong that they will be forgiven IF they act appropriately and decisively.
Consumers forgave Tylenol, Coke, and maybe TiVo (not sure).
Consumers did NOT forgive Perrier who tried to whitewash the issue at first.
Using the two-pronged test of ‘The Reasonable Expectation Test’ used in Katz vs. US (1967), was there a reasonable expectation of privacy and is this expectation reasonable in the eyes of society? Although the context of the case was government intrusion of privacy, it would be interesting to evaluate it in the present context. For the first part, the fact that a significant number of users are protesting, suggests that there was an expectation of privacy for a significant number of users. So the question remains–is this expectation reasonable in the eyes of the rest of us? In spite of my legal training, I don’t claim to be an expert in privacy by a long shot, but I think we are going to hear more of this debate from a legal perspective.
This is really unfortunate, as I do believe that we’re at a crossroads in relation to consumer privacy tolerance. The Do Not Mail and Do Not Call lists are now pretty much intact. Now, direct marketers are wrestling with a potential Do Not Track list online as well. Why? Because we aren’t doing right by people in certain cases and they’re chapped off! Regarding this situation, this is probably an understatement…all Facebook had to do was inform their members and request permission. Come on…they knew better!
We truly need database marketing and responsible data mining to better market to people in today’s challenging climate. I really hope this kind of thing doesn’t poison the consumer mindset around it for all of us.
Facebook executives absolutely crossed the line with the introduction of Beacon. It is also interesting to note that this is not the first time that they have made a major mis-step when it comes to challenging the privacy rights of their users. This is indicative of Facebook’s young and inexperienced management. They tend to implement programs that they think are okay, without checking with their users (customers) first.
That being said, their users are very loyal. The chances are good that their loyal users will remain with them, even after this mistake. Yet Facebook management needs to be cautious, because too many errors will result in Facebook ending up like Friendster…a once hot property now almost non-existent in the US.
Chalk me up for a “crosses the line” vote. It’s nice to share, but only if you know you’re doing it.
In regard to Facebook’s action, I say: Trust everybody, but cut the cards and deal from the top of the deck. If someone doesn’t do that, why play the game with them any longer?
Obviously the Facebook controversy is part of a larger issue: to what extent are private companies obliged to protect consumers’ privacy? Do we in fact have a right to privacy?
The commercialization of our communications has constitutional implications. How about the right to free speech? Take for example, the recent Verizon brouhaha over the Pro-Choice text messages being sent on the network. At first, Verizon disallowed the messages. Then they relented.
When does government step in to protect citizens? Perhaps a right to privacy will be next amendment proposal to the Bill of Rights.
The sharing of information is fine when people are aware that it is going to happen. Facebook clearly went over the line on this one. I think lots of people would be fine with this; obviously, many are not. (Choice is the big issue here. I had a hard time answering the poll question since it wasn’t clear if choice was a part of it all.) This is somewhat like the wilder ’60s rockers lacing the punchbowl with LSD without telling anybody. Sure, some people enjoyed it; others did not, and should have been told up front.
Facebook’s Beacon fiasco could’ve been avoided by carefully testing a pilot before rollout. The pilot could’ve been done with a few thousand participants instead of everyone. Good website craftsmanship often includes testing changes with a small minority of the audience.
This is a much bigger issue than what someone purchased and who found out about it. In everything I have read, the problem was not that people found out what was purchased but sometimes the gift was a surprise or might have been meant for someone else other then the person who was notified and thought they were going to get the gift.
The real problem that keeps coming to the surface is what are the ramifications if you use the information you find on the web in making a hiring decision that has adverse impact or the information was not correct. Or what about the applicant or employee that asks “Why does it matter to you what I do on my own time if it does not effect my ability to be productive on the job and is not illegal?”
I doubt anyone will be surprised that my vote goes to the “went way over the line” camp. But what intrigues me is that the comments are largely in that vein–while the survey results show 58% of respondents saying “no problem here”…who’s not talking?
Beacon is a great example of execs assuming they know and understand their consumers and being so confident of their assumption that they don’t check with their consumers. While people on Facebook may share information that others think is private, it is the people choosing what to share. Assuming that they approve of someone else making that decision for them was wrong. Facebook is about individual choice and Beacon violated that consumer value. Assuming consumer knowledge is always dangerous.
If there is an issue sure to generate debate, it is the privacy issue. Clearly, Facebook wrongly estimated the response of a vocal group of Facebook users. Some comments refer to choice or at least discuss the issue in that context. I think the better approach is to phrase this as a consent issue. Were they informed and did they consent (obviously not, in this case)? Consent is a tough issue to address. If you give a retailer your email address, what have you consented to? What type of consent is needed? Is consent once consent for all time? Given the general age group targeted by Facebook, it is apparent that privacy is an issue that spans age groups and is not something of concern just to the babyboomer and older generations.
Yet another instance, in my view, of corporate stupidity. Why do these people insist on shooting themselves in the collective foot? It would have been so very simple to have an opt-in rather than an opt-out or no option at all.
In other similar news today, one of Asda’s spokespeople admitted the stupidity of its cut-price champagne offer and said it was purely designed for publicity reasons as there was virtually no champagne available at the advertised price. Just barely enough to get away with. And Tesco, that lover of the consumer, sent a letter to an elderly disabled couple scolding them for spending too long shopping and taking up a car parking space that someone else (who may or may not have spent as much money) might possibly have wanted before they finished browsing, shopping and even eating in the store. I would say that words fail me but obviously they haven’t. Color me exasperated.
Any system that reveals anything of a personal nature without the express permission of a party has suffered a breach of privacy. For any internet site to ASS U ME that anything is OK should be grounds for suit. I hope someone has the resources to sue the heck out of Facebook. Where is the ACLU when you need them?
Purchasing information, of any type is personal and confidential. What we purchase, how much we pay and when we purchase products give insights into who we are and our lifestyles. It is a personal decision to allow anyone to use this information, and this information is private. As such, it should be kept confidential and restricted from any other use, without gaining full approval from the person about whom it reflects.
I had set up a Facebook account to learn more about it for a work project about 6 weeks ago. I took my account down when they revealed to my entire network (albeit a small one) that I had booked a hotel room along with the site where I had made the transaction, the date and the time. I was quite shocked.
It’s an open-source world now, so, I definitely think it’s something consumers will adjust to and welcome…eventually.
However, to many others’ points above, Facebook should have let anyone/everyone know the minute they signed up for the service. I don’t think it would’ve mattered, unless you’re over 40.
Think about it, wouldn’t it be pretty interesting if you knew who else your romantic interest was getting gifts from? …Oh, the possibilities!
This is like asking “is it ok to cheat on your wife?” My personal answer is soundly NO. But then I answer this poll. I’m also forced to speak for my daughter who loves FaceBook. Sharing purchase (and other analyzed and/or raw demographic and specific?) information could be made into a positive thing. I have a public face and a private face. If I reveal the private and someone secretly reveals it I would be angry. I am also always suspicious and guarded. But I don’t find it at all bad if someone reveals my published public. That’s the secret. Clearly identify the line and always, forever follow the contract.
I agree with Evan, above. The facebook program can be a winner, just as many other social e-commerce practices have worked before. The difference here is that a) it was not tested first on a select group of people and b) the sharing of that info should always be “opt-in” versus “opt-out”. Those who spend lots of time promoting the cool new abilities of “Web 2.0” should not regress–just think a little more carefully as time progresses.
More Discussions
Has Same-Day Delivery Become an Expectation Across Retail?
Are expectations around retail delivery speed in flux?OpenAI Names the Infrastructure Standard for Agentic Commerce
Will OpenAI or Google (or another entity) set the gold standard for agentic commerce?Is Five Below Poised For Even Greater Growth?
Five Below is hitting serious growth numbers. Can this trend continue?
Did Facebook cross the line? I’d rather say that they made this move inappropriately. The difference is that I do agree with Facebook that something VERY similar to this program COULD work, but it needs to be presented properly and at least start with more-than-ample opt-out options.
Facebook’s right that this is a huge marketing/advertising opportunity AND that their customers could indeed benefit from this. But they didn’t properly sell those benefits to those users.
Targeted ads based on private history are dicey stuff. Sharing private purchases with everyone on a friends’ list is an order of magnitude touchier.
It needs restrictions (for gift giving or other sensitive situations), but a modified version of this might work well, say one year from now. The prospect of having a surprise birthday gift ruined is one thing. What about the married customer whose bride is alerted that the customer is purchasing lots of red roses or diamond earings, that the spouse never sees? Lots of dangerous situations potentially there….
I personally think that this was a major breach of etiquette. A huge faux-pas. But then again, I believe in privacy. Perhaps my kids who are aged 30 and under would feel differently. The question is…really, why didn’t they ask their members first before sharing the info? Wouldn’t that have given a choice? Wouldn’t that have empowered the members? Maybe they would have said “Sure, why not.” Many people make purchases that they wouldn’t want shared with their friends…maybe Facebook just didn’t think it through and only looked at the revenue potential.
Definitely crossed the line. However, it’s not too late for Facebook to prevent harm–the brand is so strong that they will be forgiven IF they act appropriately and decisively.
Consumers forgave Tylenol, Coke, and maybe TiVo (not sure).
Consumers did NOT forgive Perrier who tried to whitewash the issue at first.
Using the two-pronged test of ‘The Reasonable Expectation Test’ used in Katz vs. US (1967), was there a reasonable expectation of privacy and is this expectation reasonable in the eyes of society? Although the context of the case was government intrusion of privacy, it would be interesting to evaluate it in the present context. For the first part, the fact that a significant number of users are protesting, suggests that there was an expectation of privacy for a significant number of users. So the question remains–is this expectation reasonable in the eyes of the rest of us? In spite of my legal training, I don’t claim to be an expert in privacy by a long shot, but I think we are going to hear more of this debate from a legal perspective.
This is really unfortunate, as I do believe that we’re at a crossroads in relation to consumer privacy tolerance. The Do Not Mail and Do Not Call lists are now pretty much intact. Now, direct marketers are wrestling with a potential Do Not Track list online as well. Why? Because we aren’t doing right by people in certain cases and they’re chapped off! Regarding this situation, this is probably an understatement…all Facebook had to do was inform their members and request permission. Come on…they knew better!
We truly need database marketing and responsible data mining to better market to people in today’s challenging climate. I really hope this kind of thing doesn’t poison the consumer mindset around it for all of us.
Facebook executives absolutely crossed the line with the introduction of Beacon. It is also interesting to note that this is not the first time that they have made a major mis-step when it comes to challenging the privacy rights of their users. This is indicative of Facebook’s young and inexperienced management. They tend to implement programs that they think are okay, without checking with their users (customers) first.
That being said, their users are very loyal. The chances are good that their loyal users will remain with them, even after this mistake. Yet Facebook management needs to be cautious, because too many errors will result in Facebook ending up like Friendster…a once hot property now almost non-existent in the US.
Chalk me up for a “crosses the line” vote. It’s nice to share, but only if you know you’re doing it.
In regard to Facebook’s action, I say: Trust everybody, but cut the cards and deal from the top of the deck. If someone doesn’t do that, why play the game with them any longer?
Obviously the Facebook controversy is part of a larger issue: to what extent are private companies obliged to protect consumers’ privacy? Do we in fact have a right to privacy?
The commercialization of our communications has constitutional implications. How about the right to free speech? Take for example, the recent Verizon brouhaha over the Pro-Choice text messages being sent on the network. At first, Verizon disallowed the messages. Then they relented.
When does government step in to protect citizens? Perhaps a right to privacy will be next amendment proposal to the Bill of Rights.
The sharing of information is fine when people are aware that it is going to happen. Facebook clearly went over the line on this one. I think lots of people would be fine with this; obviously, many are not. (Choice is the big issue here. I had a hard time answering the poll question since it wasn’t clear if choice was a part of it all.) This is somewhat like the wilder ’60s rockers lacing the punchbowl with LSD without telling anybody. Sure, some people enjoyed it; others did not, and should have been told up front.
Facebook’s Beacon fiasco could’ve been avoided by carefully testing a pilot before rollout. The pilot could’ve been done with a few thousand participants instead of everyone. Good website craftsmanship often includes testing changes with a small minority of the audience.
This is a much bigger issue than what someone purchased and who found out about it. In everything I have read, the problem was not that people found out what was purchased but sometimes the gift was a surprise or might have been meant for someone else other then the person who was notified and thought they were going to get the gift.
The real problem that keeps coming to the surface is what are the ramifications if you use the information you find on the web in making a hiring decision that has adverse impact or the information was not correct. Or what about the applicant or employee that asks “Why does it matter to you what I do on my own time if it does not effect my ability to be productive on the job and is not illegal?”
I doubt anyone will be surprised that my vote goes to the “went way over the line” camp. But what intrigues me is that the comments are largely in that vein–while the survey results show 58% of respondents saying “no problem here”…who’s not talking?
Beacon is a great example of execs assuming they know and understand their consumers and being so confident of their assumption that they don’t check with their consumers. While people on Facebook may share information that others think is private, it is the people choosing what to share. Assuming that they approve of someone else making that decision for them was wrong. Facebook is about individual choice and Beacon violated that consumer value. Assuming consumer knowledge is always dangerous.
If there is an issue sure to generate debate, it is the privacy issue. Clearly, Facebook wrongly estimated the response of a vocal group of Facebook users. Some comments refer to choice or at least discuss the issue in that context. I think the better approach is to phrase this as a consent issue. Were they informed and did they consent (obviously not, in this case)? Consent is a tough issue to address. If you give a retailer your email address, what have you consented to? What type of consent is needed? Is consent once consent for all time? Given the general age group targeted by Facebook, it is apparent that privacy is an issue that spans age groups and is not something of concern just to the babyboomer and older generations.
Yet another instance, in my view, of corporate stupidity. Why do these people insist on shooting themselves in the collective foot? It would have been so very simple to have an opt-in rather than an opt-out or no option at all.
In other similar news today, one of Asda’s spokespeople admitted the stupidity of its cut-price champagne offer and said it was purely designed for publicity reasons as there was virtually no champagne available at the advertised price. Just barely enough to get away with. And Tesco, that lover of the consumer, sent a letter to an elderly disabled couple scolding them for spending too long shopping and taking up a car parking space that someone else (who may or may not have spent as much money) might possibly have wanted before they finished browsing, shopping and even eating in the store. I would say that words fail me but obviously they haven’t. Color me exasperated.
Any system that reveals anything of a personal nature without the express permission of a party has suffered a breach of privacy. For any internet site to ASS U ME that anything is OK should be grounds for suit. I hope someone has the resources to sue the heck out of Facebook. Where is the ACLU when you need them?
Purchasing information, of any type is personal and confidential. What we purchase, how much we pay and when we purchase products give insights into who we are and our lifestyles. It is a personal decision to allow anyone to use this information, and this information is private. As such, it should be kept confidential and restricted from any other use, without gaining full approval from the person about whom it reflects.
I had set up a Facebook account to learn more about it for a work project about 6 weeks ago. I took my account down when they revealed to my entire network (albeit a small one) that I had booked a hotel room along with the site where I had made the transaction, the date and the time. I was quite shocked.
It’s an open-source world now, so, I definitely think it’s something consumers will adjust to and welcome…eventually.
However, to many others’ points above, Facebook should have let anyone/everyone know the minute they signed up for the service. I don’t think it would’ve mattered, unless you’re over 40.
Think about it, wouldn’t it be pretty interesting if you knew who else your romantic interest was getting gifts from? …Oh, the possibilities!
This is like asking “is it ok to cheat on your wife?” My personal answer is soundly NO. But then I answer this poll. I’m also forced to speak for my daughter who loves FaceBook. Sharing purchase (and other analyzed and/or raw demographic and specific?) information could be made into a positive thing. I have a public face and a private face. If I reveal the private and someone secretly reveals it I would be angry. I am also always suspicious and guarded. But I don’t find it at all bad if someone reveals my published public. That’s the secret. Clearly identify the line and always, forever follow the contract.
I agree with Evan, above. The facebook program can be a winner, just as many other social e-commerce practices have worked before. The difference here is that a) it was not tested first on a select group of people and b) the sharing of that info should always be “opt-in” versus “opt-out”. Those who spend lots of time promoting the cool new abilities of “Web 2.0” should not regress–just think a little more carefully as time progresses.