Who owns your data on Google, Facebook, Netflix?

The blogosphere is raging about Facebook's use of "my data". Doc Searls is promoting the idea of VRM (Vendor Relationship Mgmt) and says "Time to write our own rules".

The bargain you made in exchange for free services. Consumers sometimes forget the bargain they made in exchange for the free services. Sometimes it means your personal information can be sold or marketed. Other times it means your content is not really yours anymore. Sometimes it means you get to pay for additional services once you are hooked. Or maybe that the rules change over time and the service is unreliable. Most times things work out OK and consumers don’t complain too much.

Free services always come with strings attached, limitations, service outages, advertising, etc. Facebook seems to be attracting all the attention now, but do people realize what Google is doing with “your data”? Your search history…your click stream data…the sites you have visited? Do they understand what information DoubleClick has collected on “your data”?

Dave Winer says "I want control of my data" and states in part;

I want Netflix and Yahoo to give me an XML version of my movie ratings, for me to decide what to do with. I've been asking for this for a couple of years, I still don't have it. This is information I created. I want to keep a copy. I want to make sure that Netflix knows about all my Yahoo ratings and vice versa. I'd like to give a copy to Facebook (assuming they agree to not disclose it) and maybe to Amazon, so they can recommend products I might want to purchase (again keeping it to themselves). I want to begin a negotiation with various vendors, where I give them something of value, and they give me back something of value.

Being able to export your Netflix ratings or Facebook friends list is mildly interesting, but inconsequential when compared to what is happening with your real important data. Maybe Doc Searls, Dave Winer, and the rest of the blog cognoscenti should focus their cannons in a different direction?

Subscribe - To get an automatic feed of all future posts subscribe here, or to receive them via email go here and enter your email address in the box in the right column.

Comments

[Albert Maruggi]

Here’s a classic case of social media run amok. There is a post today about the F word being used in the Disney movie Enchanted.

http://tinyurl.com/34astr

It’s making it’ way up the Digg charts.

I can’t hear it after listening to the clip 10 times. I went to the movie on Thanksgiving and it wasn’t even a question. Never even thought about it, why? Cause the language is not there. There is nothing remotely that sounds like that dialogue.

So is this a case of blogsphere hysteria? Just cranking it up for the “Link Love” as gurus are fond of saying?

Should Disney even respond, as of this post I was unable to find a response. Perhaps it doesn’t deserve one, but given the dollars still left in the Christmas movie going season, I think it pays to call it like it is.

It’s a blogsphere prank, but nonetheless a real world situation in the making.

What would you do if you were Disney?

The original post by Peter Sciretta claiming the profanity was made at 12:18am on November 26. In his comments he posts the following

Peter Sciretta Says:

November 26th, 2007 at 2:21 am

Eric,

Just to clarify: The story was corrected two minutes after you posted your comment (the posting log says 12:18), this was long before Will read the story or posted his comment. The only thing I have added since Will’s posting was the bolded text telling people to read the rest of the story following the video. I felt that if Will missed it, than other people would as well.ol>

However, I could not find any reference to a correction and why is the original post still up. The fact is it is wrong. This is the kind of thing that must drive corporate marketers and PR folks mad.

Thank you Don - have we forgotten we live in a capitalistic society? We have absorbed all of these free services, WalMart has our society conditioned to expect to get it on the cheap, Web 2.0 with comparison shopping has us squeezing margins out of just about every piece of physical good, from electronics to furniture.

It's to the point where Best Buy is taking on services companies like Geek Squad computer and Speakeasy telecommunication services.

Before this decade is done, we'll see just how much of a person's disposable income they will pay or how much of their privacy they are willing to forego or how much marketing messaging they are willing to withstand in order to get these services.

The more things change the more they stay the same.

[Ted]

Services can and will be free and data will be user owned. Congress will get involved, people will become aware. Look what Yahoo did with its data. Most people don't want or even know what XML is or does. People do know they want privacy. What if purchase tracking data ends up in the wrong hands or is used for nefarious, illegal, or immoral purposes? Could Yahoo, Google, Facebook, et al deny someone a job for purchasing something not in line with corporate values. What are those corporate values. Only a few short years ago many were reluctant to purchase online. This changed, mostly because people felt safe enough to use their credit cards online and paypal made things easy, but most don't understand the tracking technology involved and what about them is tracked. Most falsely believe that they have online privacy. There is huge market potential here. People will become aware and people will gain control, but they can't count on the existing, entrenched, data robbing companies to do this for them. Get ready for change, proprietary is not an option.

[Andrew]

Don, good reminder that "Consumers sometimes forget the bargain they made in exchange for the free services."
Is there a systematic review of the major services with respect to ownership, privacy, ads, etc.? I'm not aware of one.

[Jonathan Trenn]

But what I'd say is that consumers didn't bargain that the book they just bought on Amazon, you know, the book that pertains to a controversial subject that pertains to them that they don't anyone to know about could suddenly be sent to all their "friends".

It's one thing to house and keep data on user behavior for the purposes of later marketing to them...it's another to use that data publicly to market to others without the express permission of the individual.

I'm hearing stories of people who had no idea that a window popped up, that the info was sent, etc.

[Albert Maruggi]

Have you learned anything from my half ridiculous post above? I have and let me share for my own edification since you all know I’ve committed several errors and they are.

1) when posting on two fast breaking subjects never use the same word document to check your spelling
2) If you do commit error number 1, never hit CTL A to copy the text you meant for blog comment post number 2
3) If you do commit error number 2 you will get both posts in the comment section and look, well look stupid.

My apologies Don, you can banish me from your blog forever. That’s kind of a long time, but so be it, I deserve any punishment you give me.

This is what I intended to be my comment to the issue of Facebook purchasing associations.

Thank you Don - have we forgotten we live in a capitalistic society? We have absorbed all of these free services, WalMart has our society conditioned to expect to get it on the cheap, Web 2.0 with comparison shopping has us squeezing margins out of just about every piece of physical good, from electronics to furniture.

It's to the point where Best Buy is taking on services companies like Geek Squad computer and Speakeasy telecommunication services.

Before this decade is done, we'll see just how much of a person's disposable income they will pay or how much of their privacy they are willing to forego or how much marketing messaging they are willing to withstand in order to get these services.

The more things change the more they stay the same.

[Jefferson Fletcher]

I'm still trying to figure out why social network users are most upset about their data being "exploited" as it were.

Are content authors in the self-expression era starting to get scared of the publish first-ask questions later model? How many people actually read their Terms of Service agreement before tearing the package open?

Or is it that everyone wants a piece of the revenue they are helping to generate?

My hope is it would be the latter. I hate to think that movie reviews and hottest friend lists are important enough to warrant ownership disputes.

[John M Riggs]

I recently had a run in with FACEBOOK Guys who deleted my facebook profile which appeared top of goggles search terms of my "name" occasionally as a exercise in self taught SEO aided by a person who is a professional reasons fro them deleting my profile are absolutely ridiculous and challenging the administrators a faceless person aledge I am a spammer which I know I am not.

To conclude I fidn it hard to stomach that a person who does not know me can almost by automation and a few unread mails suggest and finally conclude I am a spammer yet he or she has not legal ground to do so ?

Literally it stinks and he/she does not compensate me for many hours of building links list and address or connections with persons which I deem costly & time consuming work !

Let us start a rally to prevent this !