Being online not only makes it easier for organizations to share data in privacy policies, it also makes it easier for data subjects to disclose more information \u2013 or have data inferred about their behaviour. Organizations are incentivized to get privacy right; the more a user trusts an SNS for example, the more data they will share and the more ads the organization can serve. Privacy policies may spell out explicit terms of use, yet there is still a response when an organization goes \u2018out of bounds\u2019 with what user (perhaps unstated) expectations are.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In 2008, a non-profit advocacy group filed a complaint against Facebook under PIPEDA with the federal Government\u2019s privacy commissioner. Of the 24 allegations over 11 subjects, the Assistant Commissioner concluded that 4 of the 11 subjects included well-founded non-resolved complaints. In particular, the finding concluded;<\/p>\n\n\n\n
On the remaining subjects of third-party applications, account deactivation and deletion, accounts of deceased users, and non-users\u2019 personal information, the Assistant Commissioner likewise found Facebook to be in contravention of the Act and concluded that the allegations were well-founded. In these four cases, there remain unresolved issues where Facebook has not yet agreed to adopt her recommendations. Most notably, regarding third-party applications, the Assistant Commissioner determined that Facebook did not have adequate safeguards in place to prevent unauthorized access by application developers to users\u2019 personal information, and furthermore was not doing enough to ensure meaningful consent was obtained from individuals for the disclosure of their personal information to application developers <\/em>(Denham, 2009).<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Facebook continues to struggle with privacy issues.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 2014, the company faced criticism for conducting research on 689,000 users in 2012 to manipulate news feeds after a research paper was published\u00a0(\u201cFacebook emotion experiment sparks criticism,\u201d 2014).\u00a0\u00a0This original research was covered by the Terms of Use every user agrees to when they sign up for an account.\u00a0\u00a0Popular response was not favourable, with some users commenting \u201cI\u2019m not a lab rat\u201d, \u201cThis is bad, even for Facebook\u201d\u00a0(\u201c#BBCtrending: \u2018I\u2019m not a lab rat!\u2019 … reaction to #FacebookExperiment,\u201d 2014).\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n At the time, Facebook\u2019s researchers took to the site to engage directly with users, provide more details and apologize\u00a0(Kramer, 2014).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Being online not only makes it easier for organizations to share data in privacy policies, it also makes it easier for data subjects to disclose more information \u2013 or have data inferred about their behaviour. Organizations are incentivized to get privacy right; the more a user trusts an SNS for example, the more data they will … <\/p>\n