Facebook Lawsuit

In the same way that people sit down with card sharks in order to cash in on their strategies, of course.

One of the editorials I read on the eve of the IPO pointed out that the biggest liability in that company is Zuckerberg.

Eben Moglen of the Software Freedom Law Centre has been sounding the alarm about Facebook for several years:

Quote:

“If we are going to build systems of communication for future politics, we’re going to have to build them under the assumption that the network is not only untrusted, but untrustworthy. And we’re going to have to build under the assumption that centralized services can kill you. We can’t fool around about this. We can’t let Facebook dance up and down about their privacy policy. That’s ludicrous. We have to replace the things that create vulnerability and lure our colleagues around the world into using them to make freedom, only to discover that the promise is easily broken by a kill switch.” Eben Moglen, keynote speaker at the 2011 FOSDEM Meeting in Brussels on Feb, 5, 2011

Eben Moglen: "Centralized Services like Facebook can kill you".

So you wouldn't want the right to shut down an online profile of your spouse's? That others have access to and can modify by posting on it?

Smth, would you want the right to shut down a personal profile of your spouse's or not?

jas wrote:

Smth, would you want the right to shut down a personal profile of your spouse's or not?

Well in the first place, she is not her spouse, she is her mother. And any of us who have parents and children understand that is quite a different thing. 

But in case I didn't make it clear enough, no. If someone doesn't properly take care of their business when it comes to death, too fucking bad. A family member shouldn't just have the right to step in and assume control. At least not in all things in all jurisdictions. 

And when it comes to clamping down on others' tributes just because someone happens to find it difficult, I think it is quite unethical. After all, these are positive expressions, not slurs.

janfromthebruce wrote:

I understand you have never experienced your child dying.

Sorry, but you know very little about my personal life, and that is a bullshit argument.

Maybe we should ask the dear departed how she feels about her mother erasing her memory and heartfelt expressions of her friends. Too bad we can't do that, though I think we can take something from the fact that someone was putting effort into keeping her memory alive.

Speaking hypothetically, how can we know that a relative in a situation like this is even on good terms with her daughter, that she approved of her friends and lifestyle? That she understands what the dead person would have wanted?

And while we can't know for sure that she is one of those people who takes another person's tragedy and makes it all about them (and I have seen more than a few of those), I do find the motivation here questionable, and more than a little selfish.

As I said above, if someone doesn't take care of things like wills or powers of attourney, those who are left often have to live with the consequences; while it's not the best case, it is sometimes better than the alternative.

I wonder how Ernest Hemingway would have approved of his grandson rewriting his work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Moveable_Feast

Also, I wonder how a Brazilian court can have any jurisdiction in a case like this, and how they can hope to enforce the order.

(edit)

One more thing on the parent-child relationship. As much as parents love their children, they don't own them. And an important part of being a parent is learning to treat your child as an independent person, and not your possession.

As a matter of fact I do have a bit of experience with this situation, and while I had great sympathy for the bereaved parent, what I saw was a lot of clouded judgment. For myself, I love my mother, but I know for a fact she doesn't know me well enough to plan my funeral.

So the private corporation Facebook should continue with its property rights no matter what the family says because that is only fair to them. In a battle between the two legal "people" the corporate person should prevail over the irrelevant mother.

As for dieing without a will at 24, I don't get that argument. I never had a will at 24 and I doubt if more than a small percentage of 24 year old Canadians would have a will. However the court would determine who the heir to the estate is and that is who should be able to decide about any relations with a corporate entity. I doubt if Facebook would have much standing as an heir but the mother at least has a claim that might succeed. In Canada I presume the estate of the deceased would have the authority to tell Facebook to delete  anything it wanted removed from the inherited account, that to me is the proper approach.

Facebook isn't getting anything from this other than bad publicity and some legal bills. And this isn't about them any more than a disupte over a safety deposit box is about the bank.

They could very easily just make this go away by deleting the profile. Unless money has changed hands it's pretty hard to argue that someone else owns it so I fail to see how anyone stands to "inherit" anything. And they already have rules in place regarding death, which (wisely) are not just limited to family.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_and_the_Internet

But like any host they do have to pay some attention their clients and act in a way that shows they can be trusted with people's security. Speaking of bad publicity that they already have.

As well, things aren't exactly the way they were when we were 24 - especially when it comes to a public space like the internet.

None of this changes my main point, which is that people should be able to make their own choices for themselves, or designate who can do that. There are cases where people are SOL if they don't pay attention to that. The rules regarding power of attourney in some provinces are one example. It can result in some real problems for people, but as I said, the alternative can sometimes by far worse.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

 I didn't think the court ruling extended beyond this young man's personal Facebook page.

Young woman.

Unionist wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

 I didn't think the court ruling extended beyond this young man's personal Facebook page.

Young woman.

Of course sorry for the mistake.

OathofStone wrote:

On one hand we all know how utterly heartless, vicvious and hateful people can be on facebook. If I had a family member pass away and their facebook page was subject to those kind of posts I too would want the page deactivated.

On the other hand if someone passes away a facebook page complete with thoughts, pictures, likes, songs, personal tributes by friends and everything else would make a much more pensive tribute to someones life than a stone in the ground. Perhaps.

It shouldn't matter what the content is, whether it's "good" or "bad". It's the principle that needs to be decided on.

OathofStone wrote:

I kind of see a FB page as someones intellectual properity (well except for FB stealing pictures for ads, giving information out, media stealing quotes etc..). I don't think a parent has a right to remove someones FB page anymore than the parent would have a right to access their email accounts.

Maybe this decision could be put in the hands of whoever is the executer of the will?  Considering how personal facebook pages can be this may be something someone might want to consider in their will.

Facebook didn't merely maintain a profile page. They altered it to become a memorial page. How do they know what the wishes of the deceased would have been? Quite apart from the issue of respecting the wishes of the next of kin, I think Facebook stepped beyond their rights when they altered the page.

And, as Krop points out, if the deceased had no will, the courts would decide this anyway, which they have done here.

Except she really cant do that. In fact, the friends could set up an identical tribute page that she would have no control over at all. With every photo and statement copied

And thats a very selfish primal desire and totally unflattering.

Who has a control over a person? Sounds like a controlling abusive spouse since thats the kind of control they seek to exert. No one is allowed any memory or bit of the deceased? She had no other loves at all? Just mom.  Selfish asshole IMO

In this case Facebook started the memorial page using the dead person's Facebook info. I don't believe there is any good in a decision that would have said that if you join Facebook and you die they own you. If you are popular enough they can use your image and life story for their corporate purposes. Their only motivation is traffic numbers to sell ads. I find that very disconcerting.

One more good reason not to use Facebook.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

This has nothing to do with sympathy, but rather who should have the right to take over other people's stuff. I don't think we need to know a lot about this case to recognize that principle.

Quote:

Judge Arantes said making the girl's profile into a "memorial wall" went against "the right of personal dignity and inflicted great suffering on the mother, due to the premature death of her only child".

Facebook guidelines include a right to remove a deceased user's timeline and all content associated with it upon request by a verified family member.

However, the social network also set out the idea of a memorial wall in the company's blog in October 2009.

Indeed the question is who should have the right to take over someones stuff and you are siding with Facebook. I don't think a corporation should have the right to take over dead peoples images or legacy. The mother did not take her daughters friends to court she took a soulless corporation who was using her dead daughter to sell ads. Her daughter signed up for a Facebook page not a memorial wall.

So where in the "deal" does it say that Facebook can alter your page when you die and keep in running in the face of your family saying they don't want it to continue.  I would like you to find the clear language you think gives them that right because I doubt if it is made clear to anyone signing on to Facebook that it owns your page and its images after you die.

Well since Facebook is not the party who took action here, I'll turn that first question back to you.

Legal and blood relation doesn't necesarily mean much when it comes to consent. If that were the case there'd never be any need for restraining orders, powers of attourney and the like. And according to the story this isn't about protecting the daughter's memory, but rather the suffering claimed by the mother.

Is an internet host supposed to ignore its reponsibility to its clients security with no other grounds than that someone else is upset by its content?

I brought up the terms of service because you are turning this into a question of exploitation and profit, something that was not part of the mother's argument. Clearly the daughter made that choice when she signed up with facebook in the first place.

To use your own argument, Smith, if someone is placing that much value, and reach, on his or her Facebook profile, they should be aware of what can happen to it after death.  They should know these things before they sign up for Facebook.

This case seems to be about both property rights and torts.  But that is in Canadian terms.  I doubt if we have any Brazilian law experts on babble and I certainly would not presume that the laws in those area bear much resemblance to Canada's.  In Canada the executor of the estate whether that be from a will or named through the courts would be who I would want to have deal with things like Facebook pages and whether to close them or not. If a living person wants their accounts closed and their page taken down I believe that in Canada they have that right. If we don't have that right it is just another reason not to be on Facebook. A persons estate should inherit that right.

I thought it might have something more to do with dignity and privacy rights of the dead, if not their kin. If a site or account that references but is not owned by the deceased is left up and running and modifiable by others, then it leaves itself open to all kinds of content that may have nothing to do with the deceased or his/her wishes. I would hope that's what it's about anyway.

However, if a site owned by the deceased, such as a web page or site, survives its owner, I would guess that intellectual property rights come into play, and I would hope that it is less easily shut down by an executor or other interested party.

jas wrote:

However, if a site owned by the deceased, such as a web page or site, survives its owner, I would guess that intellectual property rights come into play, and I would hope that it is less easily shut down by an executor or other interested party.

In our legal system it is the executor who in effect speaks for the deceased.  Who would you like to have that right instead and what process do you think would be good to deal with such claims?  I am not an expert on wills but I thought the estate gets intellectual property rights subject of course to the testators instructions if any are left in a will.

This is Facebook's "Statement of Rights and Responsibilities" or essentially their end user license agreement (EULA).   These are the things that folks never bother to read when signing up for a web service or installing a software programme.

The applicable point in the agreement is:

Quote:

Sharing Your Content and Information

You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, and you can control how it is shared through your privacy and application settings. In addition:

1. For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.
2. When you delete IP content, it is deleted in a manner similar to emptying the recycle bin on a computer. However, you understand that removed content may persist in backup copies for a reasonable period of time (but will not be available to others).
3. When you use an application, the application may ask for your permission to access your content and information as well as content and information that others have shared with you.  We require applications to respect your privacy, and your agreement with that application will control how the application can use, store, and transfer that content and information.  (To learn more about Platform, including how you can control what information other people may share with applications, read our Data Use Policy and Platform Page.)
4. When you publish content or information using the Public setting, it means that you are allowing everyone, including people off of Facebook, to access and use that information, and to associate it with you (i.e., your name and profile picture).

      5. We always appreciate your feedback or other suggestions about Facebook, but you understand that we may use them without any obligation to compensate you for them (just as you have no obligation to offer them).

Basically, if you've posted something on Facebook, you grant them the right to use it pretty much any way they feel like.    The only way you can stop them from using it is if you delete it.

So if you don't like Facebook's license agreement, don't agree to it and don't use the service.

janfromthebruce wrote:

k is right. The named executor of the estate receives that right to act on behalf of the deceased.

Right. I was making a assumption that an owner-maintained copyrighted work (e.g., a website or other publication) vs. a copyright one has, by default, given to a third party service provider, would be more protected from interference even by an executor, but maybe I'm wrong. Perhaps it's something that has to be explicitly stated in the will.