<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Facebook: What Have You Become?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.mikebruckner.com/2009/02/17/facebook-what-have-you-become/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.mikebruckner.com/2009/02/17/facebook-what-have-you-become/</link>
	<description>Welcome! Stay! Read my thoughts!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:31:34 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Justin</title>
		<link>http://blog.mikebruckner.com/2009/02/17/facebook-what-have-you-become/comment-page-1/#comment-30</link>
		<dc:creator>Justin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Feb 2009 21:58:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bigenohs.com/mbruckner/blog/?p=133#comment-30</guid>
		<description>Oh noes, Mike, they&#039;re out to sell your pictures and make a profit!

But in all seriousness, I think you&#039;re being a little paranoid about this. Remember, they had all that in their TOS before, the only change to it was the addition of the clause allowing them to keep it indefinitely. I don&#039;t know why you&#039;re more upset about it now than you were before, because things haven&#039;t changed terribly much.

The addition of that clause isn&#039;t so they could make a profit selling your pictures. It&#039;s there because someone might notice that a message or a wall post sent to someone else lingered around after they deleted their account, and thought they could make some money by suing Facebook. They&#039;re just covering their ass.

Also, it&#039;s important to note that the terms are subject to your privacy settings. They can&#039;t do much with anything you post as non-public.

But let&#039;s pretend that&#039;s not true. Let&#039;s say that Facebook has the ability to do whatever they want with anything you post, regardless of any privacy settings. I really don&#039;t care. I wouldn&#039;t be able to make a dime off any of my pictures, I doubt they could do much better. If I could, I would certainly never post them to Facebook in the first place. I would also never post anything that I wanted to keep absolutely private. If you trust anything other than a face-to-face conversation as a secure medium, then you&#039;re being naive.

What&#039;s the bottom line? Don&#039;t post anything to the internet that you don&#039;t want up there forever. That has been true for some time, and it is still true. Facebook&#039;s TOS modifications don&#039;t change that.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh noes, Mike, they&#8217;re out to sell your pictures and make a profit!</p>
<p>But in all seriousness, I think you&#8217;re being a little paranoid about this. Remember, they had all that in their TOS before, the only change to it was the addition of the clause allowing them to keep it indefinitely. I don&#8217;t know why you&#8217;re more upset about it now than you were before, because things haven&#8217;t changed terribly much.</p>
<p>The addition of that clause isn&#8217;t so they could make a profit selling your pictures. It&#8217;s there because someone might notice that a message or a wall post sent to someone else lingered around after they deleted their account, and thought they could make some money by suing Facebook. They&#8217;re just covering their ass.</p>
<p>Also, it&#8217;s important to note that the terms are subject to your privacy settings. They can&#8217;t do much with anything you post as non-public.</p>
<p>But let&#8217;s pretend that&#8217;s not true. Let&#8217;s say that Facebook has the ability to do whatever they want with anything you post, regardless of any privacy settings. I really don&#8217;t care. I wouldn&#8217;t be able to make a dime off any of my pictures, I doubt they could do much better. If I could, I would certainly never post them to Facebook in the first place. I would also never post anything that I wanted to keep absolutely private. If you trust anything other than a face-to-face conversation as a secure medium, then you&#8217;re being naive.</p>
<p>What&#8217;s the bottom line? Don&#8217;t post anything to the internet that you don&#8217;t want up there forever. That has been true for some time, and it is still true. Facebook&#8217;s TOS modifications don&#8217;t change that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: todd</title>
		<link>http://blog.mikebruckner.com/2009/02/17/facebook-what-have-you-become/comment-page-1/#comment-29</link>
		<dc:creator>todd</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Feb 2009 06:33:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bigenohs.com/mbruckner/blog/?p=133#comment-29</guid>
		<description>yeah, I was pretty offset to hear of these recent changes, too. I might at least write them (if I knew where to send an e-mail too!) and tell them that I don&#039;t agree with the changes and urge them to reconsider.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>yeah, I was pretty offset to hear of these recent changes, too. I might at least write them (if I knew where to send an e-mail too!) and tell them that I don&#8217;t agree with the changes and urge them to reconsider.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
