However, the controversy wasn’t limited to organizations with official memberships. There was a user group formed by 38,000 Facebook users who got together to protest the change in policy. Blogs all over the Internet have been posting their concerns and news websites have written extensive stories about the changes that Facebook implemented. The new terms of use seemed to give Facebook eternal ownership of your personal content–even if you decide to delete your account.

These changes were made in the beginning of February and had already circulated, but were not widely noticed until Sunday. Chris Walters of the Consumerist came upon the change in the language. He explained that the section in question explains how Facebook has an “irrevocable, perpetual” license to use your “name, likeness, and image” in essentially any way, including within promotions or external advertising, but this wasn’t anything new.

What was new in the language was that a sentence was removed. This line said that the license would “automatically expire” if you chose to remove your content. With that clause removed, you could have deleted your content and Facebook would have owned it forever, being able to control and publish it in any manner years or even decades after you deleted the content.

“People own their information,” said Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, while attempting to calm concerns. He posted a blog entry where he said that Facebook “wouldn’t share [it] in a way you wouldn’t want.”

However, in a turn of events and amid user revolt, Facebook backed away from the newly implemented terms of service, which were considered by many to be a privacy violation. Facebook Chief executive Mark Zuckerberg last night said that the company would go back to the previous version of its terms of service, the one with the sentence stating that the license would expire when you deleted your content.

“Over the past few days, we have received a lot of feedback about the new terms we posted two weeks ago. Because of this response, we have decided to return to our previous Terms of Use while we resolve the issues that people have raised,” is how Zuckerber explained it in his blog post.

Zuckerberg had attempted to calm the fears of a privacy violation in a blog Tuesday, explaining that the terms of service were originally revised so that Facebook had the right to share your information with your Facebook friends. When faced with user revolt and in the face of formal complaints with the FTC, Facebook did a complete turnaround. Zuckerberg didn’t back away from the fact that Facebook wants to update its terms of service, but he said they would now look for user input. He added, “If you’d like to get involved in crafting our new terms… you can start posting your questions, comments and requests in the group we’ve created-Facebook Bill of Rights and Responsibilities.”

You can go to PC World and read more on the subject.

We are very troubled at TicosLand.com and all over Costa Rica. Our country has many users on the social network, including well-known athletes and models and they would have lost control of their images if Facebook had chosen to continue with the new policies. It cannot be that the price a user has to pay for using the social network is giving up control of his/her content. We caution people to always read the terms of use and/or privacy statement of any website before you decide to join and upload your personal information and images.

I’m a big Facebook fan but in the last little while I have been wondering about what Facebook will look like in the future… Just thinking about the advantages of having Facebook (especially with all the new privacy features) for government agencies seems like a godsend. I mean, if you think about it, people “without any coercion” are documenting their every move online… If anyone wanted to track you, wouldn’t the best place be Facebook /Twitter ?

Ok, so, how unreasonable is it to assume that some of the following are possible in the future?

-no passport: why would you use a passport when you can add a “Passport Facebook Application” that will do the same thing? All you’d have to do when you get to the airport is show them your “virtual passport” on your Phone/PDA or perhaps give a secret access code to anyone who wants to check it out (possibly via bluetooth)?

-Facebook pages mandatory: Already, if you don’t want to fall behind in life, you need a facebook profile…. is it unreasonable to assume that one day everyone will be required to have a facebook page? Remember, as we go forward, privacy features will only get better (or so we hope)… so, its not all that unreasonable…

-verify with birth certificate: what if you had to verify your facebook page with your original birth certificate in order to prove your identity? Could your facebook page also act as your birth certificate? what if you were given login access credentials in the hospital when you were born?

-driver’s license: why show your driver’s license when you are standing in line for a 19+ bar/club when you can show your facebook page? yeah, yeah, you can show it when you get pulled over by a cop too…

big brother: Is it also unreasonable to assume that government agencies will be freely able to browse through all of this material online? I for one think that one is not so unreasonable at all…

Anywho… a lot of this stuff sounds ridiculous, I know. But, the world changes fast… I remember when I was first telling people about Facebook in Ottawa, Canada they would say: “why would I join? so people could stalk me?” and now look at where we are… people’s ideas and beliefs are changing.

Aydin.

Posted By: Aydin Mirzaee