Robert Scoble has about 5000 Facebook friends and was using a script to get a “map” of all his Facebook network and data so he could move it to a different platform. He writes in his blog: “I am working with a company to move my social graph to other places.” Facebook responded by disabling his account, because he was, as Scoble quotes their email, “viewing pages at a quick enough rate that we suspect you may be running an automated script”, and because, “This kind of Activity would be a violation of our Terms of Use and potentially of federal and state laws.”

Now I can actually see why you’d NOT want automated scripts sucking up info about us off Facebook. I intend the information on my profile to be read by my human friends, not collected by computers and repurposed for unknown projects. Scoble seems to have been scraping information off his social network on Facebook for a fair reason, though: so that he can re-implement his social network on a different service. The information is, after all, his. Or rather, it belongs to him and his friends – and I’m one of his Facebook friends. So it sounds as though his script was saving information off my profile, too, for instance. I wouldn’t be OK with someone taking that information, much of which is only viewable to my friends, and reposting it on another website.

I don’t really know what Scoble was intending to do with the data. Probably his intents are entirely benign. He clearly sees this as an issue of data portability and of owning your own data.
But whose data is it really? The individual user’s – in this case Scoble’s? Only a tiny fraction of the data on Scoble’s “social graph” was actually created by Scoble himself. Facebook’s? Well, legally, yes, because that’s how they’ve written their terms of use. The reasonable conclusion, in my opinion, is that it should belong to the people who shared their information. Scoble’s “social graph” on Facebook belongs not only to Scoble, but to all 5000 of Scoble’s friends. And how on earth can you really get permission to copy and reuse the data from all these people?

It’s certainly very convenient for Facebook that protecting their users’ privacy fits simultaneously allows them to stop anybody from moving their data to another service.

Update Jan 4: Scoble’s been readmitted to Facebook.

Update Jan 8: Thomas Otter has posted a very interesting blog post describing how Scoble’s actions were in violation of European privacy laws.

7 thoughts on “facebook protects us from having our data scraped – but that also stops us from MOVING our data

  1. Bauy Veiagora

  2. Carleen

    “Itís certainly very convenient for Facebook that protecting their usersí privacy fits simultaneously allows them to stop anybody from moving their data to another service.” Isn’t it though? I have a love hate relationship with Facebook for these reasons. I’m especially twitchy about there terms of service regarding peoples photographs, and don’t friend anyone unless I know them in person.

    I’ve read several entries on Scoble’s situation today and yours is the only one that actually explained in plain terms what exactly he was doing so a semi-techi like me could understand. Thanks for that 🙂

  3. William Patrick Wend

    The more I hear about Facebook the less and less I want to be on it.

  4. Mum

    If I was on Facebook I would be relieved to hear of this example that my data is being protected at least to this minimal extent.
    I would be highly sceptical about being a friend of someone who not only has a mind-blowing 5000 friends but who wants to move the data without the permission of each of the 5000!!

  5. Owen

    Thomas Otter’s interperation of Privacy Laws is incorrect. The scraping of Facebook data is a violation of Facebook’s ToS however it’s not unlawful.

    His “friends” accepted him (or more likely he accepted them) and as such they have implied that he is allowed to use their e-mail address if they have chosen to display their email address (and they can choose not to), then it’s also fair to assume that address can be used to send them email.

    If that was not their intention they should unfriend him and subscribe to his RSS feed if he has one.

  6. Jill Walker Rettberg

    Owen, that’s the argument Scoble makes in the comments to Otter’s post, however, I think Otter’s response is more accurate. <

  7. Thomas Otter

    Jill.
    Thanks for linking. My privacy post has been an interesting ride.
    It is interesting to see that most european bloggers feel uncomfortable
    with Scoble’s actions. Most Americans seem cool with it.

    I believe that we all have the right to participate online without giving up our
    rights at law.

    I’m glad I popped by here, as I have an interest in storytelling too.
    Thomas
    (ps there are some issues with the comment box sizing here (wiht firefox)

    http://theotherthomasotter.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/thinking-about-ubuntu-but-not-just-the-unix-sort/

    Thomas

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

Machine Vision

Cultural Representations of Machine Vision: An Experimental Mixed Methods Workshop

Call for submissions to a workshop, Bergen, Norway
Workshop dates: 15-17 August 2022
Proposals due: 15 June

The Machine Vision in Everyday Life project invites proposals for an interdisciplinary workshop using qualitative approaches and digital methods to analyse how machine vision is represented in art, science fiction, games, social media and other forms of cultural and aesthetic expression.

Digital Humanities Machine Vision

What do different machine vision technologies do in fiction and art?

For the Machine Vision in Everyday Life project we’ve analysed how machine vision technologies are portrayed and used in 500 works of fiction and art, including 77 digital games, 190 digital artworks and 233 movies, novels and other narratives. You can browse […]

AI and algorithmic culture Presentations

My talk on caring AIs in recent sci-fi novels

I’m giving a talk at an actual f2f academic conference today, Critical Borders, Radical Re(visions) of AI, in Cambridge. I was particularly excited to see this conference because it’s organised by the people who edited AI Narratives A History of Imaginative Thinking […]