msblogs

Facebook launched a feature last night called Places that enables users to share their location. Before the launch event had even concluded, the ACLU of Northern California had fired off a missive about how the product fails to protect user privacy. The complaints haven’t stopped since then, with groups like the Center for Digital Democracy saying it will try to get the U.S. Federal Trade Commission involved and widespread Twitter chatter bemoaning the Places default settings.

Facebook should have known this criticism was coming, no matter what it did. Privacy is a very real issue when it comes to people’s personal information, and especially their real-time location. The company tried to make such issues go away with a big simplification of its privacy settings in May and a dedicated presentation about privacy at the Places launch event last night. However, there was no chance that was going to be enough.

From my perspective, the differences between Facebook’s and other people’s check-in products (e.g. Gowalla and Foursquare) are the following:

• Facebook has more than 500 million users who signed up to use a social network, not a location-sharing service.
• Facebook allows users to tag their friends at locations. So there’s the possibility that a friend could “check-in” at a location and tag you even if you aren’t actually there.
• Facebook shows users’ full names and profile data when they’ve recently checked in at a place (this feature is called “Here Now”).

The ACLU’s basic contentions are that:

• Facebook Places is opt-out instead of opt-in.
• Users’ check-in data can be seen by people who are not their friends through Here Now.
• Facebook developers get access to Places data in their applications. In other words, if your friend installs an app but you don’t, your data goes to that developer anyway.

This morning, Facebook contested the ACLU’s complaints with an email to press saying:

• Places is not actually opt-out. Before any location data about them is published, all users must must opt-in to the product. They cannot be checked in by friends until they are Places users. When a friend tags you at a location you get notified, and it doesn’t show up on your profile until you agree.
• Users can limit their settings to turn off “Here Now” functionality or their check-ins entirely.
• Facebook automatically turns Here Now off if you already have restricted other privacy settings, and automatically limits sharing with applications if you opt out of other location-sharing features.

Bringing attention to the issues of privacy around location sharing is a good cause, so props to the ACLU for that. Facebook absolutely could have made Places more opt-in, for instance, by making people find the app themselves and decide to install it on their profiles. As it is, some Facebook users are reporting that turning off Places entirely involves jumping through several hoops. But as usual, the company is more concerned with reducing friction that will stop products from spreading and people from sharing. That’s always going to be problematic for many people. In my opinion, friends checking friends in will happen rarely unless your friends are real jerks or teenagers. Both of those are (hopefully) temporary situations.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user Shortlake Snapshots.

Related content from GigaOM Pro (sub req’d):

Facebook Tries to Navigate Privacy Storm

Please see the disclosure about Facebook in my bio.

GigaOM

Right now it’s unclear where Verizon and Google are in their discussions to end net neutrality, and under what terms the telco would grant preferential treatment to certain types of content and for what price. Although Google and Verizon now both deny that such a deal is in the works, it is clear that any prioritization of paid web traffic would have a devastating effect on startups and video publishers that don’t have Google or YouTube’s deep pockets to pay for the privilege of better access.

In a phone interview, Ryan Vance, vice president of programming and production at Revision3, said, “Any situation that creates a tiered structure where large companies with deep pockets can edge out startups is a bad thing for media in general.” As a result, Vance said the folks at Revision3 are firm believers in net neutrality and allowing free access to all content equally.

Erick Hachenburg, CEO of Metacafe, said via phone that the online video industry is full of small and innovative companies that don’t have access to the funds needed to compete with Google’s deep pockets. In fact, he suggested that once upon a time not too long ago, YouTube itself wouldn’t have been able to compete with the likes of Google. Meaning that if Google were making the type of deal it is rumored to be in talks with Verizon over, YouTube might not have been able to grow into the giant video sharing platform it is today.

Speed matters when it comes to growing an online video audience. “Whenever you think about how to increase usage to a web platform,” Hachenburg said, “the first thing is how quickly you can load your site.” On the one hand, YouTube could argue that improving its speed would be beneficial to its users. But that improved access would come at the expense of all the other web video sites out there.

Revision3, for instance, distributes through YouTube and more than 40 other distribution partners. And while the startup could theoretically see some benefit from having its content prioritized, were YouTube and Verizon to strike a deal, its other distribution partners could see their users migrating to YouTube and other sites that pay for faster load times and better quality streams. All of which could have a “devastating effect” on the web video ecosystem, Vance said.

“At the stage of growth that this industry is at, an even playing field is important,” Vance said. “Content should be able to be seen and viewed and judged on its merits, not on other matters.”

In the same way, Hachenburg argues that Google won’t let companies pay for better search results. So why should Google pay to have its content prioritized? “YouTube might say they’re doing it for the sake of users, but it also happens to be a competitive advantage. But if it is better for users? And who gets to decides the content that they want?” Hachenburg asked.

Related content on GigaOM Pro: The New Net-Neutrality Debate: What’s the Best Way to Discriminate? (subscription required)

GigaOM

Here we see Steve Jobs & the almost bankrupt at the time Apple Computer making a temporary deal with Bill Gates & Microsoft. The crowd was not too happy about it.