My Digital Footprint

where your privacy is someone else's business ...

Facebook Claims It Can Use Kids' 'Likes' As it Likes, Wants Class Action Tossed

Image001

Facebook asked a federal judge to dismiss a class action accusing it of exploiting children, claiming that Facebook users' "like" statements qualify as matters of public interest

http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/08/08/38793.htm

 "Expressions of consumer opinion, such as the plaintiffs' Like statements challenged here, have repeatedly qualified as matters of public interest under the First Amendment," Facebook claimed in a motion seeking "more definite statement or dismissal."   On behalf of their children, Melissa Dawes and Jennifer DeYoung filed a class action on June 1, claiming Facebook's non-negotiable terms of membership that say its members are subject to such advertising and marketing do not apply to minor children.

The plaintiffs say children lack the capacity to consent to the use of their name and photographs for marketing, advertising and selling of goods and services. Facebook uses users' "Like" statements to advertise products. Facebook claims republishing the "Likes" is protected and provides a service.
"By republishing a user's name or likeness along with the true statement - already shared with the user's Friends - that he or she 'Likes' certain content being advertised on its website, Facebook

provides a forum for authentic endorsements by persons who, without pecuniary motive, have expressed their approval of a particular product, service, or cause," Facebook claims.
"This serves a particularly valuable public interest because the information is republished only to the user's friends - persons for whom a user's opinion may be of particular interest, and with whom the user has already decided to share that information. Consequently, Facebook has a right under IRPA [Illinois Right of Publicity Act] to republish information that the courts have explicitly recognized relates to matters of public interest." Facebook also claims that the plaintiffs failed specify which law it broke.
"Plaintiffs' vague references to unspecified 'state law' render their claims unintelligible, prejudice Facebook's ability to prepare its defense, and will hinder the Court's efforts to evaluate the sufficiency of plaintiffs' claims," Facebook says. "This defect requires dismissal and a more definite statement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e)."
    

 Facebook cited a similar case in California Federal Court that was dismissed.
     

Represented by Matthew D. Brown with Cooley LLP of San Francisco, Facebook seeks oral argument, and wants the complaint dismissed with prejudice

Is there relationship between My Data and My Rights

Slide3

This is the last of three thought exercises I do before I start workshops on Digital Footprints.  The other two are here (All Data and My data & My Data and My Identity)

In this case I ask the audience to draw models, as they are getting use to it now, on the relationship between My Data and My Rights.  This one always takes longer than the others and more often than not starts with one model and will move to a final one before presenting, but there will still be a general disagreement in the room.

The Extension model : In this case there is thought that you have rights outside of your data and that you don't have rights to all your data.

The Control model : Everything is mine and everything is in my control and I have and control the rights to everything.....

The Right model : You only have certain rights over a small subset of your data

The Real model : You may like to believe you have rights but you have none.

Models relating MyData and Identity

Slide2

In a previous blog I detailed a basic question I ask when starting workshops on Digital Footprints to help the audience understand that they will not only disagree with my views but already disagree with each others.  To avoid recrimination at coffee breaks I now tend to say there is no right answer.......

Following on from drawing venn diagrams about ALL data and MY Data, I then move to what they see as the relationship between My Data and My Identity.   I define the two for this exercise in very general terms so My Data is all data created and consumed by me and My Identity is what ever you feel Identity is.  There are fewer consensus models presented but usually the room is more evenly split across all four and it always changes as more models come out.

The Related model : This shows an acceptance that there is a relationship between My Data and My Identity but tends to agree that whilst there is some cross over, Identity is sometimes given (government/ company) and some data will not even if associated with me not create any new aspect of identity.

The inseparable model : Like the visionary model in the other post, the same people see that My Data and MY Identity are one at some point in the future.

The Subset model :  The thinking here is that Identity will be formed in the future from a subset of all data and that Identity cannot be formed without our data.  I am never sure how kids will get their names or how friends influence who you are!

The Multiple Me model : I am not one identity and cannot be defined as one identity.  I have different circles (Google +) and therefore need to have several persona.

The GreaterThan model :  Identity is greater than your data and that Identity will be given to you by your family, friends, connections, government and company. 

6 models showing different perceptions of all data and my data cross over

 

 

Slide1

 

When I am asked to present about "Digital Footprints" I often start with a question.  The question serves only one purpose and has not answer but is only to highlight that everyone in the room probably has a slightly different view of what they think is "their data."  Once this is established it tends to remove the ideals that there is a right and wrong solution to dealing with data

 

Starting at the top left and walking along the top, dropping down and ending up at the bottom right here are the 6 models.  The grey shaded area represents "all data" and the green is "my data".  I define for this example that all data is all data that exists. My data is data created or consumed by me.

 

Model 1:  The Righteous model.  The vast majority of people will draw the Venn diagram like this - showing that My Data is a small subset of all data and everyone who draws this cannot believe there is any other model. "It is the only logical one"

 

Model 2: The Visionary model.  A few visionaries who are forward thinking and therefore see that since I will have access to all data at some point, my data and all data are the same and there is no difference between them. 

 

Model 3:   The Idealistic model. Whilst the vast majority will start with model 1, some do move and suggest that data will exist outside of all data which is private and therefore cannot be accessed by anyone but me.

 

Model 4: The Evolution model.  Taking the righteous model and realising that my data will live in several places.

 

Model 5: The Private model. This does not appear often but there are those who want all their data outside of all data.  Always interesting as I never define what rights all data has, but it is assumed by the supporters of the private model that all data is open, transparent and accessible.

 

Model 6: The replication model.  This is where someone wants to store their data and therefore it is in their control - often as a replication of their data.

 

 

This is a useful and simple exercise to get people thinking about their Digital Footprint and where it exists.

 

 

 

 

 

Massive #BBC resource on Privacy

Image001

Where does the balance lie between an individual's right to privacy and the public's right to know? http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2011/06/the_privacy_commission.shtml

 

The BBC has interviews with : Hugh Tomlinson QC, Zac Goldsmith MP, Max Mosley, Stephen Abell, Hugh Grant, Sir Charles Gray, Alan Rusbridger, Helen Wood, Max Clifford, Marcus Partington, John Kampfner, Christopher Graham, Louise Mensch, Andy Trotter, John Mullin, Avril Sanders Royle, Jimmy Wales

You can read more about the Commissioners here.

The draft terms of reference are now available on the PM blog, and listeners have a week to offer suggestions and alterations for the Commission to consider, as well as proposals for witnesses. Evidence sessions will begin in mid-June.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2011/06/the_privacy_commission.shtml

Considering digital footprint within wider interdependencies: access, control, store, attributes and rights..

Digital_footprint_attributes

The definition of digital footprint DATA in the following blog is used with the most all embracing and generic meaning of data which includes all raw data (collected, implicit, implied, passive or active collection); meta-data (data that defines the data, tags and attributes about the data); and information, insight, knowledge derived from analysis.

I start with an assumption that all digital footprint DATA has a creator (seller) and consumer (buyer) and all DATA needs context.  The simple examples of content, you take a photo of me and share it or a transaction, I buy something; highlight a critical point, both the creator (seller) and consumer (buyer) have rights to the DATA.  There are two special cases, one where the creator and consumer is the same body and the other where there is an intermediary or third party (buy something using credit). Irrespective of the structure there may need to be an agreement/ barter/ trade about the DATA and rights. Some of these agreements are already regulated.  In the case of a transaction, companies need to keep the data about the transaction for a period as defined by law, usually for tax reasons. However the individual may keep the record for longer or shorter, but could sell on the same data.  Therefore giving user control over their DATA is probably not that simple as they cannot control both sides.

Therefore, I think we need to consider digital footprint DATA within wider interdependencies: access, control, store, attributes and rights……

Access: fairly much already defined in law. You have rights to access your data that someone else has. The side you don’t control.  However My Digital Footprint is in silos and having access is probably not sufficient

Control: you do “control” your half of the barter, but that does not always give you rights to control what the other party has the rights to do.

Store: trusting users to manage, store, keep or preserve their half of the data (real and attributes) is not a viable option if there is a need for reliability, security, integrity or longevity. Further, where data is stored adds a layer of complexity.

Attributes: Possible attributes could include, inspect my data, pass-on, store, copy, modify, analyse, sell on, anonymize, compare, inform an authority, convert, hold, private/social, check, stop, set or change validity period, set delete date or delete.

Rights:  classic “who, what, how and when”.  HOW has WHO been given the right to do WHAT to my data and WHEN!