The Information you request is available for a nominal fee...

Some time in the 80's, I watched my father answer the phone, and realized fairly quickly that he was speaking to a survey-taker of some sort. I rolled my eyes... because I knew what was coming. Rather than just hang up the phone, my father politely went along with the preamble before responding "the information you request is available from me for a nominal fee." Telemarketing revenge aside, he had a point. This was his information, and he wondered why someone should profit from it in some way that didn't include him. Or perhaps it was just his way of fighting back at a gnawing feeling that he was somehow losing another bit of his privacy.
On the other hand, I have to admit I've never really been overly frightened of losing control of my "information." Not through any sense of false bravado, but mostly because I've always kind of assumed that most of my information is already "out there" somewhere anyway. I guess I figured it's kind of like stealing a car: if somebody really wants it, sadly, they're probably going to get it. I've written in other posts voicing my concern over what I see as a gradual decline in our collective notion of "privacy", and I've seen friends go through the nightmare of an identity theft. I'm certainly don't like the idea of everybody having access to everything. But the pragmatist in me just sees it as somewhat inevitable. Especially when we give so much of it up so freely ourselves.
Which is why I was a bit startled at the upheaval this week over Facebook's newly proposed - and then retracted - terms of service agreement with it's members. Facebook now counts over 175 million users among it's base, which if it were a country, would make it the 6th largest nation in the world. Facebook management declared eminent domain to that nation this week, with a newly proposed terms of service contract that would essentially give it perpetual ownership to pretty much anything entered into it's system: personal information, photos, friends lists, and more. The resulting protest from privacy organizations and users was swift and immediate. Within hours, the issue was at the top of Internet news headlines, technology lists, and sent Twitter abuzz.
For their part, Facebook explained that the world had gotten it all wrong, and that they, like Google, "meant no harm" - all a big misunderstanding. Yet under increasingly mounting pressure from advocacy groups and members, Facebook repealed the offending TOS on Wednesday, and posted a plea to members asking assistance on crafting a better, more palatable, agreement.
Was this, as one group called it.. a "digital land grab?" or an innocent omission? It's tough to say, honestly, but in the end, does it really matter? What's surprising to me is how willingly members contribute all sorts of what used to be considered "private" information into Facebook, and broadcast it for all the world to see, in the first place. Yes, you can control some of this with Facebook's privacy settings. But while abundant, they are anything but intuitive, and trying to figure out what other folks can and can't actually see, by default or otherwise, isn't an easy task. ("is this person in my network, a friend, external,etc). Given how willingly folks contribute essentially private information into a public system, I'm surprised that there was such a reaction to Facebook taking what it's membership had already handed over anyway. More and more adults, myself firmly included, who should supposedly "know better" are utilizing Facebook to connect with old friends, college classmates, and former co-workers. Fear of data loss hasn't stopped us from continuing to feed it's web of information about us with email addresses, cell phone numbers, professional connections, photos, and witty repartee. So why the hubbub, bub? Isn't the real concern that the information itself is so widely exposed, not who actually took it?
Of course, in the end I'm glad Facebook rescinded, but I have the feeling we're simply prolonging the inevitable. If not now, it'll happen. Some day, some service is going to be perceived as so compelling, so "must have", that folks will accept an even more egregious set of terms simply to be part of it. Especially if it's built in to the TOS from the start. Google already tracks all of the search and browsing patterns you use in it's Chrome browser, is what Facebook proposed really all that much of a stretch beyond that?
Maybe we all should have responded by telling them the information was available for "a nominal fee." I wonder if they would have hung up.