<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;facebook&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 15 May 2013 07:34:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Did Paul Duffy's Wife Admit That He Was Engaged In Interstate Extortion On Facebook?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130514/15163123086/did-paul-duffys-wife-admit-that-duffy-was-engaged-interstate-extortion-facebook.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130514/15163123086/did-paul-duffys-wife-admit-that-duffy-was-engaged-interstate-extortion-facebook.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Paul Duffy, as many of you know, is one of the key players in the Prenda/Anti-Piracy Law Group game.  In fact, he's "officially" the only named partner of Prenda -- though others have argued that it's really John Steele and Paul Hansmeier pulling Duffy's strings.  Either way, Duffy might want to have a talk with his wife.  As some folks noticed, late on Monday, his wife, Shari Duffy <a href="https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/334406298982555648" target="_blank">made a post on Facebook</a> (since deleted) about her husband's activities, in which she lashes out at those who have pointed out that he's engaged in what various courts have now called a "fraud on the court" by calling them "the worst kinds of thieves imaginable."  But, the key thing is the final line of her comment:
<center>
<a href="http://imgur.com/6Ex7pV0"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/6Ex7pV0.png" width=560 /></a>
</center>
If you can't read the full text, here it is:
<blockquote><i>
Here's a fun fact...my husband sues people for pirating porn and the phone companies for putting it in the hands of people under 18...the men caught really hate his firm and have tried to harm him physically and financially, but they are the worst kind of thieves imaginable and shame on all the mobile carriers for allowing people to move X rated material to the hands of minors.  <b>Someone we know paid an undisclosed amount to settle a case so that we would not release his name to the public.</b>
</i></blockquote>
It's worth pointing out that the folks involved in various trolling efforts have generally bent over backwards to avoid saying that they're getting people to pay them to avoid being named, because, you know, that's illegal.  As former federal prosecutor, Ken "Popehat" White <a href="https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/334406298982555648" target="_blank">notes</a>, this "sounds like a confession of interstate extortion to me."  And remember that Judge Wright, in the Southern District of California, has already claimed that Duffy's actions (along with Steele and Hansmeier) should be investigated by the US Attorneys for racketeering -- and extortion is generally a key part of many racketeering schemes.
<br /><br />
I'm no expert on extortion law, so for those who are, please weigh in, but it seems like <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/875" target="_blank">18 USC 875(d)</a> might be particularly relevant here:
<blockquote><i>
Whoever, with intent to extort from any person, firm, association, or corporation, any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to injure the property or reputation of the addressee or of another or the reputation of a deceased person or any threat to accuse the addressee or any other person of a crime, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
</i></blockquote>
Admitting that the person paid up to avoid being named, and not because of any merit in the accusations seems to be a pretty clear admission to violating that law.  We've heard of stupid criminals getting rung up for their own social networking posts, but how about their wives "bragging" about their actions and admitting to federal crimes in the process?
<br /><br />
And, of course, not that it needs to be said, but while perhaps some of the people speaking out against Duffy and his firm were caught in his scheme to get people to pay up, many of us have never been involved or accused of infringement, and are speaking out because we think his actions are an abuse of the legal system to shake people down for money -- pretty much exactly as Shari perhaps inadvertently admitted.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130514/15163123086/did-paul-duffys-wife-admit-that-duffy-was-engaged-interstate-extortion-facebook.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130514/15163123086/did-paul-duffys-wife-admit-that-duffy-was-engaged-interstate-extortion-facebook.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130514/15163123086/did-paul-duffys-wife-admit-that-duffy-was-engaged-interstate-extortion-facebook.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>oops,-did-i-say-that?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130514/15163123086</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 10 Jun 2011 09:27:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Lies, Damned Lies And Facebook Evidence Get FBI Involved In Divorced Couple's Spat</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110609/22173914646/lies-damned-lies-facebook-evidence-get-fbi-involved-divorced-couples-spat.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110609/22173914646/lies-damned-lies-facebook-evidence-get-fbi-involved-divorced-couples-spat.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ In a story that sounds like a movie plot with a few extra twists in it, last week a man, David Voelkert, was <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-20070198-71/man-arrested-after-wife-poses-as-teen-on-facebook/">arrested</a> for putting a GPS device on his ex-wife's car.  The backstory behind this is that the ex-wife, Angela Voelkert, had created a fake Facebook profile of a 17-year-old girl, named Jessica Studebaker, and then befriended David to try to "get him to talk" in a way that would provide her ammo in their custody battle.  We've been hearing how Facebook evidence has become pretty standard these days in divorce cases, so I guess creating a fake persona to try to dig out some extra info is the obvious next step.  David Voelkert was apparently extremely forthcoming with the fake teen, telling her how he had put a GPS device on Angela's car, and said something about harming Angela.  He also spoke of taking his kids and "disappearing."  Angela reported this to the authorities, and the FBI stepped in and arrested David over the GPS tracking while investigating the rest.
<br /><br />
And that's where the case turned strange.
<br /><br />
After holding him for four days, federal prosecutors <a href="http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/funny/facebook-spy-vs-spy-case-126493" target="_blank">have dropped all charges</a> against David.  Amazingly, he provided them with <a href="http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/voelkert-dismissal?page=0" target="_blank">a sworn affidavit</a> that he'd had notarized <i>before all of the incriminating messages were sent to "Studebaker,"</i> a letter saying that he believed his wife was behind the account and was trying to "tamper" with his life:
<blockquote><i>
I received a friend request from a one Jessica Studebaker.  From the start of that friend request, I was under suspicion that it was not a real person, but my ex-wife or someone she knows.  I am talking to this 'person' on Facebook via messages through the Facebook mail system.  I am lying to this person in extent to gain positive proof that it is indeed my ex-wife trying to again tamper in my life.  Anything said in the chat to her from me cannot be held as truth and I am chatting to this person in attempts to prove to my court that my ex-wife will not leave my personal life alone....  The lies that I am placing in this chat is for her to bring such up in court on the 8th day of June, 2011.  I need proof what my ex-wife has been doing.... In no way do I have plans to leave with my children or do any harm to Angela Dawn Voelkert or anyone else....
</i></blockquote>
Federal officials checked with the person who notarized the letter, confirming that it was indeed written and signed prior to the messages actually being sent... and realized that they had no case at all.
<br /><br />
So how long until the movie rights to this story are sold?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110609/22173914646/lies-damned-lies-facebook-evidence-get-fbi-involved-divorced-couples-spat.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110609/22173914646/lies-damned-lies-facebook-evidence-get-fbi-involved-divorced-couples-spat.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110609/22173914646/lies-damned-lies-facebook-evidence-get-fbi-involved-divorced-couples-spat.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>sounds-like-a-movie</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110609/22173914646</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 8 Mar 2011 22:17:55 PST</pubDate>
<title>Facebook Comment Leads To Arrest In Zimbabwe</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110307/03572813381/facebook-comment-leads-to-arrest-zimbabwe.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110307/03572813381/facebook-comment-leads-to-arrest-zimbabwe.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/03/04/2217226/Zimbabwe-Makes-Facebook-Arrest?from=twitter" target="_blank">Slashdot</a> points us to a report out of Zimbabwe, claiming that a guy has <a href="http://www.swradioafrica.com/news040311/byoman040311.htm" target="_blank">been arrested for a Facebook comment</a>.  Apparently he commented on the Facebook page that supposedly belongs to the country's Prime Minister, Morgan Tsvangirai, where he said:
<blockquote><i>
"I am overwhelmed, I don't want to say Mr. or PM what happened in Egypt is sending shockwaves to dictators around the world. No weapon but unity of purpose worth emulating, hey."
</i></blockquote>
The guy was actually arrested before the police realized what he had written.  An anonymous tipster claimed that the guy had sent a "security threat" via his phone, so he was arrested.  Police then searched his phone and found that message.  He's now been charged with "advocating or attempting to take-over government by unconstitutional means," and prosecutors have asked for him to be denied bail.  Seems like an extreme response to a simple Facebook comment.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110307/03572813381/facebook-comment-leads-to-arrest-zimbabwe.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110307/03572813381/facebook-comment-leads-to-arrest-zimbabwe.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110307/03572813381/facebook-comment-leads-to-arrest-zimbabwe.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>free-speech-isn't-free</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110307/03572813381</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 18 Feb 2011 14:08:18 PST</pubDate>
<title>Facebook Timestamp Used In Lawsuit Claiming Driver Was Facebooking When She Ran Over &#038; Killed Pedestrian</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110217/02132613149/facebook-timestamp-used-lawsuit-claiming-driver-was-facebooking-when-she-ran-over-killed-pedestrian.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110217/02132613149/facebook-timestamp-used-lawsuit-claiming-driver-was-facebooking-when-she-ran-over-killed-pedestrian.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ With all the stories these days of folks "texting while driving," it was only a matter of time until there was an attempt to claim that Facebooking-while-driving resulted in an accident.  A wrongful death lawsuit in Chicago is <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-20032067-71.html" target="_blank">alleging that the driver of a car in a fatal accident had just updated her Facebook status</a> at the same time.  The details of the situation are a bit confusing.  Basically, a 70-year-old guy named Raymond Veloz got into an accident with another car (not the fatal accident) around 7:30 am.  The two cars pulled over to the side of the road to exchange information.  Closer to 8 am, another car, driven by Araceli Beas, struck Veloz, severing his leg, resulting in him bleeding to death.  Veloz's daugher is now claiming in the lawsuit that Beas updated her Facebook status at 7:54 am... the exact same time that Veloz called 911 over being hit by Beas' car.  Beas' mother insists that her daughter <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chibrknews-womans-mom-denies-facebook-allegation-20110215,0,4906576.story" target="_blank">updated her status earlier</a>, from the front of her boyfriend's house, as she waited for her car to warm up.  Either way, this should make for an interesting case, as the timing of the various calls and questions about the accuracy and delay in Facebook messages and timestamps will suddenly become very, very important...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110217/02132613149/facebook-timestamp-used-lawsuit-claiming-driver-was-facebooking-when-she-ran-over-killed-pedestrian.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110217/02132613149/facebook-timestamp-used-lawsuit-claiming-driver-was-facebooking-when-she-ran-over-killed-pedestrian.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110217/02132613149/facebook-timestamp-used-lawsuit-claiming-driver-was-facebooking-when-she-ran-over-killed-pedestrian.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>modern-evidence</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110217/02132613149</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 24 Aug 2010 14:42:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>How Should Facebook Respond To The Social Network Movie?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100824/03532210755.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100824/03532210755.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ As you probably know by now, there's a movie coming out this fall, called <i>Social Network</i>, which is sorta, kinda, maybe an extremely fictionalized version of the story behind Facebook.  It was based on a book by Ben Mezrich, which was already a fictionalized account of the founding of Facebook -- based on notes from a disgruntled co-founder, with Mezrich taking significant creative license to fill in lots of blanks.  Then, famed writer Aaron Sorkin wrote the script, passing it through a second fictionalized filter.  And, not surprisingly, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/21/business/media/21facebook.html?_r=1&#038;pagewanted=all" target="_blank">the folks at Facebook are not at all pleased with the movie</a>, which doesn't exactly portray Mark Zuckerberg or Facebook in a very nice light.
<br /><br />
Apparently Facebook execs are debating what to do about the movie, and it's almost surprising that they haven't tried to take legal action -- because that's almost what you'd expect these days.  Of course, they probably realize that doing so will only get the movie more attention (though, it certainly looks like the movie is going to get plenty of attention already).  Yet in an age where "publicity rights" lawsuits are becoming more common and many movie makers feel they need to secure the rights of anyone and any company that shows up in a film, it's actually somewhat surprising that this particular film actually was made.
<br /><br />
But given that Facebook execs are trying to figure out what to do about the film and how to respond to it, I'm curious what folks here think.  I think I would go with the simplest of all solutions: a single page that explains why the movie is a greatly fictionalized account, and not an accurate depiction of either the company or its employees, past or current, and then just stay quiet otherwise.  What else would you suggest?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100824/03532210755.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100824/03532210755.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100824/03532210755.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>tread-carefully</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100824/03532210755</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 29 Apr 2010 13:23:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Middle School Principal Tells Parents To Ban Facebook And Spy On Text Messages</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100429/1100509240.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100429/1100509240.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ A bunch of folks have been submitting this story of a New Jersey middle school principal sending an email to all parents telling them to <a href="http://wcbstv.com/technology/facebook.social.networking.2.1662565.html" target="_blank">ban Facebook for their kids</a> and to spy on all of their text messaging habits.  Because, apparently, at Benjamin Franklin Middle School, "trust" is not something they want to teach.  We see this sort of overreaction to new things all of the time.  In the past, school administrators have needlessly freaked out about such things as comic books, dungeons and dragons, walkmen and mp3 players.  If the principal, Anthony Orsini, had just sent out a note saying "talk to your kids and pay attention to what they're doing online," it would have been fine.  But, instead, he went all out:
<blockquote><i>
It is time for every single member of the BF Community to take a stand! There is absolutely no reason for any middle school student to be a part of a social networking site!
<br><br>
Let me repeat that - there is absolutely, positively no reason for any middle school student to be a part of a social networking site! None....
</i></blockquote>
Actually, there are plenty of reasons why a middle school kid might be a part of a social networking site: it's called communicating with their peers.  That doesn't mean parents should let their kids use them entirely freely, but a blanket ban is clear overkill by someone who apparently doesn't understand how these things work.
<blockquote><i>
Please do the following: sit down with your child (and they are just children still) and tell them that they are not allowed to be a member of any social networking site. Today! 
<br><br>
Let them know that you will at some point every week be checking their text messages online! You have the ability to do this through your cell phone provider. 
<br><br>
Let them know that you will be installing Parental Control Software so you can tell every place they have visited online, and everything they have instant messaged or written to a friend. Don't install it behind their back, but install it!
</i></blockquote>
He goes on to then urge parents to contact the police any time their child gets a message they don't like:
<blockquote><i>
If your son or daughter is attacked through one of these sites or through texting - immediately go to the police! Insist that they investigate every situation. Also, contact the site and report the attack to the site - they have an obligation to suspend accounts or they are liable for what is written. 
</i></blockquote>
That last line, saying that the sites are liable is simply not correct, but why let facts get in the way of a good rant.
<br><br>
Orsini then goes on to explain that he's absolutely positive that social networks will be found in studies to be damaging to kids:
<blockquote><i>
It is not hyperbole for me to write that the pain caused by social networking sites is beyond significant - it is psychologically detrimental and we will find out it will have significant long term effects, as well as all the horrible social effects it already creates. 
</i></blockquote>
Of course, similar things have been written about every "new" thing that the older generation in society doesn't get -- including <A href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090612/1530595217.shtml">the waltz</a> ("we feel it a duty to warn every parent against exposing his daughter to so fatal a contagion"), movies, videos games... and <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090628/1613445386.shtml">chess</a> ("chess is a mere amusement of a very inferior character, which robs the mind of valuable time that might be devoted to nobler acquirements, while it affords no benefit whatever to the body").  I assume, we can add Orsini's quote to the other quotes about those other things soon.
<br><br>
Basically, it looks like Orsini has fallen prey to yet another moral panic.  He claims that it doesn't make sense to teach "responsible" computing, because middle school kids can't handle it.  It appears that many kids in his school disagree, and are quoted in the article saying so.  Clearly, many kids will abuse social networks and the will bully others.  But doing a blanket ban certainly won't work, and is just someone overreacting because he was unable to handle some kids acting poorly.  It's an attempt to prevent kids from doing stuff, just so that the administrators might get a little "security" from kids being kids.
<br><br>
Perhaps the principal of the Benjamin Franklin Middle School, should pay attention to Ben Franklin's words:
<blockquote><i>
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
</i></blockquote><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100429/1100509240.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100429/1100509240.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100429/1100509240.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>nanny-state</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100429/1100509240</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 19 Apr 2010 21:54:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Should Managers Care That Employees Are On Facebook And YouTube While At Work?</title>
<dc:creator>Dennis Yang</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100419/0217429076.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100419/0217429076.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ A recent study <a href="http://www.allfacebook.com/2010/04/report-68-of-business-internet-traffic-goes-to-facebook/">reported that 6.8 percent of URLs accessed by businesses lead to Facebook and 10 percent of bandwidth goes to YouTube</a>.  Of course, as to be expected, along with such a study come the fears that security and worker productivity is harmed by allowing access to such "non-work" sites:

<blockquote><em>
The figures show that IT managers are right to be concerned about the amount of social network use at work. There are two real concerns here: firstly that employees will be downloading applications from social networks and putting security at risk; and secondly the amount of corporate bandwidth that appears to be being used for non-corporate activity.
</em></blockquote>

These fears seem to resurface every once in awhile, especially when some new technology starts to become ubiquitous in the workplace.  First, it's silly to think that social networks would somehow have more security-risking applications to download than the rest of the internet.  As for the productivity concern, if you're worrying about how much time your employees are spending doing "non-work" things, then you're worrying about the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081223/1139413206.shtml">wrong thing</a>.  From online shopping to social networking, allowing employees to do "non-work" web surfing while they are at the office keeps them <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/000921/0245249.shtml">happier and more productive</a>.  In fact, multiple studies have <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100224/0340498289.shtml">shown</a> that social media sites like Twitter and Facebook actually make workers more productive by sparking creative ideas.  
<br /><br />
Of course, in order to manage this properly, managers must monitor productivity based on concrete, measurable goals -- rather than focus on the time spent doing the work.  After all, if you're delivering results, why should your manager care if you spend a few minutes a day catching up with friends on Facebook?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100419/0217429076.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100419/0217429076.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100419/0217429076.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>results-based-management</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100419/0217429076</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 7 Apr 2010 11:11:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>The Story Behind Facebook Threatening To Sue Developer Into Oblivion For Highlighting Useful Facebook Data</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100407/0338488909.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100407/0338488909.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Facebook's lawyers have been getting pretty nasty lately.  We recently covered the company's <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100324/1806018708.shtml">threats</a> against the creator of a useful Greasemonkey script, and now a developer named Pete Warden has <a href="http://petewarden.typepad.com/searchbrowser/2010/04/how-i-got-sued-by-facebook.html?utm_source=feedburner&#038;utm_medium=feed&#038;utm_campaign=Feed%3A typepad%2Fpetewarden %28PeteSearch%29" target="_blank">shared the sordid details of his legal run-in with Facebook</a> -- where they threatened to sue him for his activity aggregating <i>publicly available</i> data found on Facebook.
<br /><br />
You should read the full story, but basically, he built a simple crawler for public Facebook info, initially for his own purposes.  He made sure that Facebook's robots.txt didn't block such crawlers -- and he also emailed someone at Facebook (who he had dealt with before), but didn't hear back from anyone.  As his crawler worked, it started collecting a bunch of interesting data, and so he set up a website to let people explore some of this (again, public) data.
<br /><br />
After playing with some of the data himself, he started making some interesting maps and charts with the data, and did <a href="http://petewarden.typepad.com/searchbrowser/2010/02/how-to-split-up-the-us.html" target="_blank">a simple analysis</a> of geographic locations of Facebook friend connections to show people what you could do with the data. He noted that if others (such as professional researchers) wanted to dig into the data, he would let them access a version of the data set (with identifying info stripped).  The chart he released got picked up by a variety of sites and quickly got passed around.
<br /><br />
And that's when the lawyers called:
<blockquote><i>
On Sunday around 25,000 people read the article, via YCombinator and Reddit. After that a whole bunch of mainstream news sites picked it up, and over 150,000 people visited it on Monday. On Tuesday I was hanging out with my friends at <a href="http://gnip.com/">Gnip</a> trying to make sense of it all when my cell phone rang. It was Facebook's attorney.
<br /><br />
He was with the head of their security team, who I knew slightly because <a href="http://petewarden.typepad.com/searchbrowser/2008/06/facebook-securi.html">I'd reported several security</a> <a href="http://petewarden.typepad.com/searchbrowser/2008/06/facebook-securi.html">holes to Facebook</a> over the years. The attorney said that they were just about to sue me into oblivion, but in light of my previous good relationship with their security team, they'd give me one chance to stop the process. They asked and received a verbal assurance from me that I wouldn't publish the data, and sent me on a letter to sign confirming that. Their contention was robots.txt had no legal force and they could sue anyone for accessing their site even if they scrupulously obeyed the instructions it contained. The only legal way to access any web site with a crawler was to obtain prior written permission.
</i></blockquote>
Mathew Ingram reported on the data getting forced down, and got <a href="http://gigaom.com/2010/04/01/facebook-data-deleted-after-lawsuit-threat/" target="_blank">a statement from Facebook</a> that seems to miss the point:
<blockquote><i>
Andrew Noyes, manager of public policy communications at Facebook, said in an email that Warden "aggregated a large amount of data from over 200 million users without our permission, in violation of our terms. He also publicly stated he intended to make that raw data freely available to others." Noyes also noted that Facebook's statement of rights and responsibilites says that users agree not to collect users' content or information "using automated means (such as harvesting bots, robots, spiders, or scrapers) without our permission."
</i></blockquote>
But I still don't see what the legal argument is.  At best, I could see them terminating his account for disobeying the terms of service -- but even then the whole thing doesn't make much sense.  The data is publicly available and, as Peter notes, it's pretty much standard practice for people to aggregate and analyze such data.  However, he also pointed out that he couldn't afford to be a legal test case, and so he gave in and negotiated with Facebook to remove the data.
<br /><br />
In the end, though, this shows Facebook's rather schizophrenic view towards data and privacy.  On the one hand, it tries to push everyone to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100110/1518217687.shtml">open up their info</a>, but then if anyone does anything useful with it, they threaten to sue?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100407/0338488909.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100407/0338488909.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100407/0338488909.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>how-nice-of-them</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100407/0338488909</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 25 Mar 2010 08:28:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Facebook Threatens Greasemonkey Script Writer</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100324/1806018708.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100324/1806018708.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Another day, another abusive bullying attempt.  This time, it's Facebook, which is apparently trying to <a href="http://www.facebook.com/fluffbustingpurity?ref=nf" target="_blank">bully the maker of a Greasemonkey script</a> that cleans up your Facebook live feed by removing annoying app notices (such as all the crap your friends are doing in Farmville and Mafia Wars).  It sounds quite useful.  Originally, the script was called Facebook Purity, and Facebook complained about the trademark issue (a stretch... but perhaps you could see the company's point).  So the guy changed the name to Fluff Busting Purity.  No trademark issue at all.  But Facebook is still complaining.  The thing is, this is a Greasemonkey user script -- meaning that everything happens in the user's browser -- which Facebook has no claim over.  If you tell your browser to ignore certain things on a website, that should be your choice.  This add-on is there to help people who want it, such that it makes Facebook <i>more useful</i> to them.  It's too bad that as Facebook gets bigger, we're hearing more and more stories of this kind of bullying activity.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100324/1806018708.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100324/1806018708.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100324/1806018708.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>but-it's-in-the-browser</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100324/1806018708</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 1 Feb 2010 04:46:30 PST</pubDate>
<title>Students Given Detention Just For Becoming 'Fans' Of A Page Making Fun Of A Teacher</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100126/0810057903.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100126/0810057903.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've been seeing more and more stories like this, as various schools seem to overstep the boundaries of school property into the online world to try to regulate student speech.  It's highly questionable as to whether or not they have the legal right to do so (and, in fact, there are cases that suggest that there's a significant limit to how much schools can even prevent students from speaking out while <i>on campus</i> as well).  This latest case, sent in by reader Keyop, highlights a high school in Syracuse that <a href="http://www.9wsyr.com/news/local/story/Facebook-page-punishment-spurs-debate/1gnyLiP1c0K7HQ2vVmHQYg.cspx?rss=112" target="_blank">gave detention to a group of students</a> who  had joined a Facebook group that made fun of a teacher.  The school claims that the page about the group was derogatory and libelous.  Even if we accept that's true, this seems to step over the line in a variety of ways.  First, students always make fun of teachers they don't like.  It's part of being in high school.  Pretending you can stop that isn't going to change the human nature of teenagers.  Second, even if the content is libelous, at most, shouldn't the detention have only been given to those who actually posted the libelous information, rather than to everyone who became a "fan" or "member" of the group?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100126/0810057903.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100126/0810057903.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100126/0810057903.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>not-a-fan</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100126/0810057903</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:22:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Another Failed Harvard Social Network Takes 'Legal Action' Against Facebook</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080416/022447860.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080416/022447860.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Even before ConnectU came along claiming that Mark Zuckerberg somehow <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070716/084444.shtml">"stole"</a> the idea and the code for Facebook from them, there was another Harvard alum, Aaron Greenspan, who had been claiming something similar about how Zuckerberg took the idea from a project Greenspan set up called houseSYSTEM.  When Greenspan's story (after years of him pushing it) finally got some mainstream press last year, we pointed out how <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070904/003903.shtml">ridiculous</a> the whole story was.  Facebook was hardly the first social network out there -- and ConnectU and houseSYSTEM were clearly built off the ideas of those that had come before them as well.  It seemed like both cases involved folks who had <i>failed</i> to actually execute and build something that people liked, and were taking it out on Zuckerberg (who did successfully build something that people wanted to use) in hopes of either fame or money or both.
<br /><br />
Of course, once Facebook <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080407/111721778.shtml">settled</a> the case with ConnectU earlier this month, it was only a matter of time until Greenspan realized that he might be missing out as well.  So, as you might expect, Greenspan has decided to <a href="http://venturebeat.com/2008/04/15/another-would-be-facebook-founder-takes-legal-action/" target="_new">"take legal action" against Facebook</a>, though at this point it's merely limited to trying to get Facebook's trademark on the name revoked (claiming that houseSYSTEM used the name, and that it's widely used and generic).  He may actually be right that the term is generic, but it seems more than likely that this lawsuit is just trying to drum up some attention and potentially money from Facebook.
<br /><br />
It will come as no surprise, of course, that Greenspan is really using this lawsuit to promote his "book" which has a huge section accusing Zuckerberg of getting the idea from Greenspan.  Greenspan's been promoting the book for ages, with plenty of excerpts available online.  The press release Greenspan put out claims that his "publisher" (which is apparently also owned by Greenspan) was denied the ability to promote the book because it had "Facebook" in the title.  Of course, he provides no details about who denied him the right to advertise, and it seems odd that anyone would prevent titles with the name "Facebook" from appearing, as such a book, by itself, probably is not a violation of Facebook's trademark.  Does anyone else want to claim that Zuckerberg stole the idea for Facebook?  Apparently, it's good for business.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080416/022447860.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080416/022447860.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080416/022447860.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>if-connectu-could-do-it...</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080416/022447860</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 15 Apr 2008 01:02:10 PDT</pubDate>
<title>When The Best You Can Do Is Get Fake Facebook Fans, You Know You Have A PR Problem</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080414/185111844.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080414/185111844.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Ticketmaster is widely considered one of the more <a href="http://consumerist.com/tag/ticketmaster/">hated</a> companies in America, so it made a few people scratch their heads when they saw that Ticketmaster was near the top of the list in terms of the number of "fans" it had on Facebook.  <a href="http://valleywag.com/379628/ticketmaster-creates-fake-facebook-profiles-to-boost-fake-popularity" target="_new">Valleywag</a> points to an enterprising blogger who checked out who those fans were and noticed that <a href="http://eastvillageidiot.com/2008/04/14/ticketmaster-made-dummy-facebook-profiles-to-look-more-popular/" target="_new">many, many of the fans appear to be entirely fake creations</a>.  They have no picture, no other friends and they're only fans of Ticketmaster.  In other words, it looks like Ticketmaster is "stuffing the ballot box" in order to look more popular than it actually is.  That's pretty sad.  Of course, as people in the comments note, it's not so much that Ticketmaster created the fake fans themselves: they simply offered a promotion to give any "fans" five free iTunes downloads.  So it looks like a bunch of folks set up fake Facebook profiles just to get those five free downloads -- and Ticketmaster gets to "pretend" it has all these fans.  Except, of course, now it just looks like a serious loser that has to pay for "fans" and gets a bunch of fake fans for its troubles.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080414/185111844.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080414/185111844.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080414/185111844.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>get-some-help-please</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080414/185111844</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 28 Mar 2008 08:48:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Judge Says Being A Facebook Friend Isn't Like Real Friendship</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080327/113901667.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080327/113901667.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Turns out that your Facebook friends aren't necessarily real friends... under the law (at least in the UK).  A UK judge has ruled <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/facebook-friends-not-real-judge/2008/03/27/1206207279597.html" target="_new">that requesting to be a Facebook friend isn't the same as trying to become someone's real friend</a>, which apparently matters in terms of harassment.  The case concerned a woman who accused her ex-boyfriend of harassing her by requesting to be her friend on Facebook, but the judge apparently felt that since most people use Facebook and other social networks more as a list of acquaintances, it's hardly harassment to request to "friend" an ex.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080327/113901667.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080327/113901667.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080327/113901667.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>glad-we-cleared-that-up</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080327/113901667</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:15:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Moroccan Man Pardoned For Fake Facebook Profile</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080319/121024586.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080319/121024586.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Last month, a Moroccan man was <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080224/225920339.shtml">sentenced</a> to three years in jail just because he set up a fake profile of a Moroccan prince in Facebook.  These sorts of fake profiles are <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071101/194615.shtml">quite common</a>, and it didn't appear that the profile did anything defamatory.  However, the guy was still charged with <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080206/170004191.shtml">identity fraud</a>.  That seems extreme.  If the Moroccan royal family was upset about the profile, why not just ask Facebook to take it down?  If the fake profile was defamatory, sue the guy for defamation.  Charging him with identity fraud and giving him three years in jail was clearly overkill.  The international response to this event apparently caught the attention of the royal family, and the king <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7304361.stm" target="_new">has pardoned the guy in question</a>, releasing him from jail after just a few weeks.  However, the fact that he had to go to jail at all still is worrisome.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080319/121024586.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080319/121024586.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080319/121024586.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>took-'em-long-enough</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080319/121024586</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 6 Mar 2008 13:44:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Is An Online Study Group Cheating?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080306/121402464.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080306/121402464.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <b>Vincent Clement</b> writes in to let us know that that a student at Ryerson University in Toronto is <a href="http://www.thestar.com/article/309855" target="_new">facing expulsion for setting up an online study group for his chemistry class</a> using Facebook.  The school is saying it wasn't so much a study group as it was a place for 146 students to cheat and share answers (though, it's only blaming the student who ran the group).  Students at the university are reasonably up in arms over the matter, as they don't see how it's any different than a traditional study group.  Of course, the whole thing seems a little bit silly.  As we discussed almost exactly a year ago, people working together to collaborate is an <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070308/184312.shtml">important skill</a> in the real world, and what some people consider "cheating" these days seems a lot like the type of collaboration that kids are quite used to doing online, and which should serve them well later in life.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080306/121402464.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080306/121402464.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080306/121402464.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>once-it's-on-facebook,-it-must-be</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080306/121402464</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 25 Jan 2008 04:34:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Are Facebook Applications A Privacy Disaster In The Making?</title>
<dc:creator>Timothy Lee</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080123/15023050.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080123/15023050.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ I've become steadily less enthralled with Facebook applications as I've become more familiar with them. In theory, a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070521/012457.shtml">platform strategy</a> is a great idea -- indeed, few tech companies have been really successful without building platforms that other companies can leverage to dramatically increase the value of the whole ecosystem. But not every platform strategy will necessarily be a success. And often, the crucial thing that separates a successful platform strategy from an unsuccessful one is the ability to design a good interface between the core technology and the add-on functionality. If the interface is too limited, other companies won't be able to do anything with the platform. Conversely, if the interface is too expansive, it can allow the entire platform to descend into a chaotic mess, as shoddy add-on products can undermine the reputation of the entire ecosystem. It appears that Facebook's application platform is in danger of falling into the latter trap. 
<br /><br />
Chris Soghoian has a great post arguing that Facebook's permissive policies regarding application access to user data <a href="http://www.cnet.com/8301-13739_1-9854409-46.html">poses a serious threat to user privacy</a> that could seriously damage Facebook's reputation. Soghoian says that applications are given access not just to all of a given user's information (much of which is unnecessary for the application to perform its functions) but also to a lot of information about a user's <i>friends</i>, many of whom will not have consented to have their information shared with random third-party applications. There's is a page <a href="http://www.facebook.com/privacy.php?view=platform&#038;tab=all">buried deep in the Facebook preferences</a> that allows users to disable your friends' applications from accessing this information about you, but the information is shared by default, and the page isn't going to win any awards for clarity. The situation poses a serious problem for Facebook. On the one hand, it has an obligation to preserve their users' privacy. On the other hand, it desperately wants to enhance the functionality of the Facebook platform and prove that it's more than a toy for college kids. An overly-restrictive privacy policy could make it impossible for anyone to develop the killer app Facebook craves. I'm not sure exactly where to draw the line, but I think Soghoian is right that the current system has too few safeguards against the misues of private information by third-party applications.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080123/15023050.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080123/15023050.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080123/15023050.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>promiscuous-sharing</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080123/15023050</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 11 Jan 2008 19:13:24 PST</pubDate>
<title>Hasbro Sues Scrabulous For Being Too Scrabble-ish</title>
<dc:creator>Dennis Yang</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080111/152626.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080111/152626.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ It was only a matter of time before super-popular office productivity killer, <a href="http://techland.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2008/01/11/will-someone-please-start-a-facebook-group-to-save-scrabulous/">Scrabulous, was sued by Hasbro</a> for infringing upon the Scrabble trademark.  A shutdown notice was sent two weeks ago, although, as of right now, Scrabulous is still operational (hurry up and finish up your games).  Founded in 2006 as a standalone website by two Indian brothers, Rajat and Jayant Agarwalla, Scrabulous' growth accelerated significantly when it launched as an application for Facebook.  As the 9th most popular application on Facebook, Scrabulous boasts over 2.3 million active users with over 500,000 of them active daily.  While Hasbro does indeed have a strong <i>legal</i> case against the Agarwalla brothers, they are missing out on a key opportunity by pursuing this litigious route.  Although Hasbro recently <a href="http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.showArticle&#038;art_aid=65581">licensed</a> the digital rights of its games to EA, no online version of Scrabble exists right now.  So, by shutting down Scrabulous, Hasbro would be angering 2.3 million of Scrabble's biggest fans.  Instead, why not hammer out a compromise and turn this into a win-win-win situation?  Unfortunately, most likely, history will repeat itself, as this is not the first time Hasbro has chosen this route -- in 2005, they <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/22/0149222">shut down</a> popular online Scrabble site, e-scrabble.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080111/152626.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080111/152626.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080111/152626.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>triple-word-score</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080111/152626</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>