On June 16, ten of the nation’s top privacy organizations sent (PDF) detailing outstanding privacy concerns. Facebook’s glossed over many of the critical points raised about necessary next steps. The following reiterates our concerns and addresses Facebook’s response to our June 16 letter. We look forward to discussing these issues and Facebook’s plans in more detail to resolve these issues.
1. Fix the "app gap" by empowering users to decide exactly which applications can access their personal information and exactly what information these apps can access.
Facebook Says: It has heard the concerns of the privacy groups and plans to address them in an upcoming revamped data permissions model.
The Facts: The announced plan is an incomplete solution that does woefully little to resolve the app gap. Your personal information may still fall through the privacy cracks when your friends run apps because, by default, Facebook will continue to treats apps your friends run like it treats your friends themselves, giving those apps access to most of your information without your notice or consent.
Facebook’s announced data permissions model falls short in the following ways:
- You can’t choose which apps get access. Facebook’s planned adjustments will not allow you to proactively select which apps get access to your information. The only way to keep your information from flowing to any apps your friends run is: (a) to go through the list of 700,000+ apps and explicitly block every app you don’t want to access your information; or (b) to use the "nuclear option" and stop using apps entirely in order to prevent your friends from sharing your information. This is essentially an “all or nothing” decision, because it simply is not feasible to protect data by blocking individual apps since new apps are added every day.
- Your personal information is available to apps your friends run by default. The Facebook controls that exist to limit what a friend’s apps can see about you allow access to most of this information by default. You must find the app settings and adjust them to control the information that flows to apps. (Click to find them.)
- You can’t protect all personal information. Facebook’s plans do not include settings to prevent your friends’ apps from accessing information such as “likes” and work history. If your friend can view this information, so can every random app your friend allows to do so.
- You have no way of knowing which apps have accessed your information. Facebook’s plans do not provide any way for you to know what personal information has been accessed by your friends' apps, which makes it difficult to make informed choices about your privacy.
Necessary Steps to Protect Privacy: In order to fix the and make sure that personal information about users is only accessed by people and developers that they trust, Facebook needs to give users complete and meaningful control over which apps can access their information and what information these apps can access.
2. Make “instant personalization” opt-in by default.
Facebook Says: Instant personalization is “widely misunderstood,” and that there is no privacy concern because the only information that instant personalization partners receive from Facebook is public information.
The Facts: When you visit an ordinary web site, the site doesn’t automatically know who you are. But when you go to an “instant personalization” site while logged into your Facebook account, the site knows exactly who you are, including your real name, profile picture, and other public information on your Facebook profile.
It’s like entering a store that automatically scans your wallet or purse when you walk through the door and then links everything you do in the store to your personal information—without first asking you for permission.
Necessary Steps to Protect Privacy: You should not have your identity and information disclosed to “instant personalization” sites without your consent just because you are a logged-in Facebook user. Instead, instant personalization should be turned off by default and users who want this feature should affirmatively opt in.
3. Avoid collecting identifiable information received from "social plugins," including the "like" button, unless the user actually interacts with the plugin.
Facebook Says: Its social plugins are just like every other widget on the web.
The Facts: Social plugins are different from other widgets on the web because they can connect your online activity to all of the personal information attached to your Facebook account, creating an even more detailed profile of you. Facebook can track every time you visit a page with a social plugin, even just a “like” button, and connect this activity to your Facebook account—even if you don’t use the plugin or click on the button at all. Web site developers who don’t recognize this distinction may be violating their own principles or privacy policies unknowingly by using the like button and other social plugins.
Necessary Steps to Protect Privacy: Facebook should be fully transparent about the information that is collected through social plugins, and should not retain any information about individuals who do not actually interact with the plugin. Facebook should also ensure that the “like” button does not transmit information to Facebook about third party site visitors who do not click on the button.
3a. Restore the logout button to a prominent position.
In addition, it has also come to our attention that Facebook has moved the “logout” button to a submenu, making it harder to find. This makes it more difficult for you to log out of the service and be able to surf the web without having your online activity linked to your Facebook account.
Necessary Steps to Protect Privacy: Facebook should restore a prominent logout button on its main page to make it easier for users to log off and help them to keep their Facebook and non-Facebook activities separate.
4. Give users control over every piece of information they share.
Facebook Says: It has taken away privacy settings for information like name, profile picture, and network because “it has been [its] experience that people have a more meaningful experience on Facebook if they share some information about themselves.”
The Facts: Facebook’s refusal to give you control over every piece of information that they share is inconsistent with its stated principle that “People should have the freedom to decide with whom they will share their information, and to set privacy controls to protect those choices.” Not allowing users to choose for themselves is simply contrary to this policy.
Necessary Steps to Protect Privacy: Users should have full control over who (or what) can see every piece of their information, including the fields that are currently “publicly available.” Facebook should also continue to streamline privacy settings so that protections for all personal information can be easily configured.
5. Use HTTPS by default to protect users from outside threats.
Facebook Says: It is currently testing SSL access to Facebook and hopes to provide it as an option in the coming months.
Necessary Steps to Protect Privacy: We look forward to an announcement about using HTTPS in the coming months in order to better protect users from privacy threats. Once tested, Facebook should make HTTPS the default rather than require users to select it as an option.
6. Provide users with simple tools to export their content and connections from Facebook.
Facebook Says: It imposes no restrictions on users that prevent them from exporting the content that they have posted themselves on Facebook and has open APIs that permit applications to export this information.
The Facts: Facebook does not provide its own tool to automatically export your data. Thus, if you want to port your data from Facebook to another service, you must rely on workarounds involving some “approved” automated third party application to export your own content and connections — or get Facebook’s permission to create your own tool to do so.
Necessary Steps to Protect Privacy: Facebook should include built-in functionality that makes it easy for users to export their own uploaded content and contact list so that users can rebuild their social network on another service.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
National Security
Religious Liberty
ACLU Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter IslamophobiaACLU Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter Islamophobia
WASHINGTON – The Biden administration today released the first-ever national strategy to counter Islamophobia and related forms of bias and discrimination, including hate against Arab, Sikh, and South Asian Americans. In advance of the strategy, American Civil Liberties Union and its partners had urged the administration to overhaul government programs that reflect anti-Muslim discrimination. In particular, we have called for urgent action to constrain governmental agencies from continuing to exercise their authorities and technology to wrongly surveil and investigate, watchlist, and question and detain Muslims at the border, as well as deny immigration benefits to people from Muslim-majority countries. While the White House raised expectations that many of these issues would be addressed, the final strategy ended up falling far short. The following is a statement from Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project: “While this strategy acknowledges discrimination and its harms, it does little to end them and is a squandered opportunity. For decades, American officials have invoked national security to pass laws and implement programs that disproportionately harm Muslims and people perceived to be Muslim. A serious anti-discrimination strategy would concretely address multiple bias-infused government practices that deny our communities equal participation in civic life and our democracy, like federal watchlisting, surveillance, and investigation. We’re profoundly frustrated that the administration didn’t take even the basic, overdue step of recognizing that anti-Muslim discrimination is uniquely normalized and embedded in government policies.” -
VirginiaDec 2024
National Security
Trabelsi v. Crawford, et al. – Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted ManTrabelsi v. Crawford, et al. – Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted Man
Our client, Nizar Trabelsi, is in the United States against his will. The federal government brought him here from Belgium more than a decade ago and charged him with terrorism-related crimes. At trial, the government’s case failed: a federal jury found Mr. Trabelsi not guilty. But instead of allowing Mr. Trabelsi to return to Belgium after his acquittal, the United States placed him in highly restrictive immigration detention and began an ongoing effort to force him to Tunisia, where he was born and where he will very likely be tortured. Mr. Trabelsi’s detention violates the Constitution, immigration law, and the extradition treaty between the United States and Belgium. Through this lawsuit, he seeks to return to Belgium, and he demands an immediate improvement of his detention conditions. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
National Security
Immigrants' Rights
Federal Judge Rejects Acquitted Man’s Argument That His Immigration Detention Is UnlawfulFederal Judge Rejects Acquitted Man’s Argument That His Immigration Detention Is Unlawful
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — This week, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled that the court does not have jurisdiction to decide whether the government can continue to detain Nizar Trabelsi, a Tunisian national who was brought to the United States against his will for prosecution and was cleared of all charges last year. The ruling means the United States will be able to continue to detain Mr. Trabelsi while it attempts to deport him to Tunisia, where he was born and where, as an immigration judge ruled earlier this year, he will likely face torture. The court also concluded that even if it did have jurisdiction over Mr. Trabelsi’s case, his claims challenging the government’s detention of him would fail. “Reviewing claims that the government is holding someone unlawfully is at the core of the judicial function, and we’re heartbroken for our client that the court got this so wrong,” said Brett Max Kaufman, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Center for Democracy. “The government’s arguments in defense of Mr. Trabelsi’s detention makes a hash of the Constitution, immigration laws, and its own extradition treaty.” In 2013, the United States forcibly extradited Mr. Trabelsi from Belgium to face criminal charges in the United States. In July 2023, after almost 10 years of highly restrictive pretrial detention, a federal jury cleared Mr. Trabelsi of all charges. But instead of releasing Mr. Trabelsi or returning him to Belgium, the U.S. transferred him to immigration detention, wrongly treating him as an applicant for admission and placing him in the deportation process. Over the years, the Belgian government has issued multiple formal diplomatic requests asking the U.S. to facilitate his return, but the U.S. has refused to send him back. Mr. Trabelsi filed a lawsuit challenging the government's authority to detain him. He also sought immediate improvements to his detention conditions. Those claims were not part of the court’s ruling today, and will continue to be litigated on a separate track. “Mr. Trabelsi only wants to return to Belgium after being illegally extradited to the United States, held for ten years, and then acquitted by a jury of any crimes,” said Nicole Hallett, clinical professor of law and director of the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School. “He cannot be held indefinitely and we will continue to fight to make sure that justice ultimately prevails.” Mr. Trabelsi is represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the University of Chicago Law School’s Immigrants’ Rights Clinic, the ACLU of Virginia, and Professor Jonathan Hafetz of Seton Hall Law School. The complaint in Trabelsi v. Crawford was filed against Jeffrey Crawford, warden of the Farmville Detention Center where Mr. Trabelsi is being held; Liana Castano, ICE field office director for the Washington Field Office; Alejandro Mayorkas, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; and Merrick Garland, U.S. attorney general.