Today, in response to an , Facebook to enhance user privacy over the next year. Some of these plans address third party applications, like quizzes and games, that have access to a lot of your personal information.
Wondering what this is all about? Concerned about your privacy on Facebook?
If you’re a Facebook user, check out the ACLU of Northern California's . It’s a behind-the-scenes look at all the personal details a Facebook app can collect about you and your friends – and some steps you can take to keep your private information from landing in the wrong hands (including )!
(And, yes, we know it's a little weird to warn you about Facebook quizzes by asking you to take a Facebook quiz – but at least you know who we are and that we are committed to living up to our , unlike many quiz authors who !)
Today’s Facebook Quizzes Get a Failing Grade for Privacy
Even if your Facebook profile is "private," when you take a quiz, an unknown quiz developer could be getting access to almost everything in your profile: your religious views, sexual orientation, political affiliation, pictures, and groups. Facebook quizzes also have access to most of the info on your ´Ú°ůľ±±đ˛Ô»ĺ˛ő’ profiles. This means that if your friend takes a quiz, they could be giving away your personal information too. (But, again, don’t just take our word for it: !)
And Facebook’s current restrictions on the collection and use of personal information by applications are simply inadequate. Although Facebook’s require that applications limit the collection and use of information, enforcing terms like these is really difficult. That means that random developers who choose to ignore the Terms of Service could potentially sweep up vast amount of personal information about you and your friends – and once they’ve collected it, they could easily sell it, share it, or even turn it over to the government. This is a major privacy hole, and Facebook needs to take stronger steps to address this problem than just writing a sentence in a rarely-read document.
Facebook Responds – But We Still Need Your Help
In response to the Privacy Commissioner’s investigation, Facebook has committed to taking several steps to improve user privacy. As part of these changes, Facebook needs to ensure that users are truly in control of their own information. That means changing the default privacy settings so that each user, and not that user’s friends, can decide whether to share her information with a third-party application.
That's where you come in. Learn what you can do to protect yourself right now - and help us pressure Facebook to make meaningful changes in the coming months!
- If you are a Facebook user, start by and .
- Then tell Facebook that you want stronger protection by default by .
- Be part of the movement by and by joining us on the .
- And, finally, help us spread the word by voting for our [registration required].
Don't let Facebook's default settings force you to silently pay with your privacy when you – or your friends – use Facebook. Demand that Facebook upgrade its privacy controls to give you control of your personal info.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Privacy & Technology
ACLU Applauds Arizona Supreme Court Historic Decision That Police Need a Warrant to Access DNAACLU Applauds Arizona Supreme Court Historic Decision That Police Need a Warrant to Access DNA
PHOENIX — In a 7-0 decision, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that a warrant is required to extract and analyze people’s DNA, saying that a person’s limited consent to a search of biological material for a specific purpose—in this case, a blood alcohol test for a DUI arrest—does not overcome that requirement. The ACLU and the ACLU of Arizona filed a friend-of-the-court brief in State v. Mitcham, arguing the government cannot genetically test biological material it already has in its possession—whether that’s blood taken from newborns to test for diseases or swabs collected from sexual assault survivors—to investigate the donors for a crime without first obtaining a warrant. In the decision, the court wrote that “in reaching this conclusion, we emphatically reject the State’s position that it was free to analyze Mitcham’s blood in any way it pleased simply because the State lawfully possessed the blood vials.” “Government analysis of our DNA can expose detailed information about our identity, appearance, family relationships, medical conditions, and more. We don’t consent to sharing all of that information each time we involuntarily shed our DNA or consent to a blood draw. The government’s argument in this case was a privacy nightmare,” said Vera Eidelman, staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “We are greatly heartened by the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision to preserve the privacy of our sensitive genetic information.” In 2015, during a DUI arrest, the defendant in this case consented to the government collecting a sample of his blood solely to test it for blood-alcohol content, and was advised that the sample would be destroyed after 90 days. Instead, law enforcement held on to this sample for three years, at which point it used it for a completely different purpose—to extract and analyze his DNA, without a warrant or consent—while investigating another crime. Had the court accepted the government’s rationale here, all of us who consent to a biological sample collection, at any point in time, for any purpose, to any government entity, could have been subject to a warrantless DNA search after the fact. “Our DNA can reveal so much about us that our genetic privacy must be protected,” said Jared Keenan, legal director of ACLU of Arizona. “The Court’s decision is vital to protecting the strong constitutional rights that keep all Arizonans’ information safe from warrantless searches and unconstitutional intrusion.” -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Privacy & Technology
Face Recognition Threatens to Replace Tickets, ID at Sports Events – and BeyondFace Recognition Threatens to Replace Tickets, ID at Sports Events – and Beyond
You shouldn't participate in face recognition ticketing schemes. -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Privacy & Technology
AI Generated Police Reports Raise Concerns Around Transparency, BiasAI Generated Police Reports Raise Concerns Around Transparency, Bias
AI-generated police reports threaten to exacerbate existing problems in law enforcement, and to create new ones.