Free Speech Debate

Thirteen languages. Ten principles. One conversation.

Log in | Register | Mailing list

1We – all human beings – must be free and able to express ourselves, and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas, regardless of frontiers.»
2We defend the internet and all other forms of communication against illegitimate encroachments by both public and private powers.»
3We require and create open, diverse media so we can make well-informed decisions and participate fully in political life.»
4We speak openly and with civility about all kinds of human difference.»
5We allow no taboos in the discussion and dissemination of knowledge.»
6We neither make threats of violence nor accept violent intimidation.»
7We respect the believer but not necessarily the content of the belief.»
8We are all entitled to a private life but should accept such scrutiny as is in the public interest.»
9We should be able to counter slurs on our reputations without stifling legitimate debate.»
10We must be free to challenge all limits to freedom of expression and information justified on such grounds as national security, public order, morality and the protection of intellectual property.»

What’s missing?

Is there a vital area we have not addressed? A principle 11? An illuminating case study? Read other people's suggestions and add your own here. Or start the debate in your own language.

Home | Case studies | Facebook’s over-zealous face tagging

Facebook’s over-zealous face tagging

Should Facebook automatically suggest who is in a photo? Sebastian Huempfer asks whether Facebook’s photo tagging software infringes the privacy of its users.

Photo by claudiaveja under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike Licence.

The case

On 23 September 2012 Facebook disabled automatic face tagging in photos for all users in Europe following an audit by Ireland’s data protection commissioner. When automatic face tagging is enabled, facial recognition software scans a user’s photos and suggests who might be in them. European regulators had for months criticised the feature, with some arguing the “right to anonymity is in danger”. Facebook initially resisted, insisting that automatic tagging did not contravene European laws because users could easily opt out of the service. The company eventually accepted the demands when regulators threatened legal action and fines. Facebook had previously clashed with regulators in Ireland, headquarters of Facebook’s non-US operations, and in Germany, where privacy laws ban any collection of data without the user’s direct consent.

The company faced similar problems in the US. In August 2012 the US Federal Trade Commission finalised a settlement with Facebook requiring “biennial privacy audits for the next 20 years” and forcing Facebook to make all future changes to its privacy policies opt-in rather than opt-out. Crucially, however, “new products with new privacy controls” need not be opt-in. In a statement, Facebook’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg played down the significance of this settlement.


Author opinion

Facebook’s policy changes annoy many of its users, and some countries appear to be more protective of their privacy than others. Of my 22 Facebook friends who use fake names for their main account, 16 are German. Most European countries share a preference for stricter privacy rules than the US. This collective preference has worked its way through democratic institutions and a global company is now forced to offer slightly different products abroad. In my mind, this does not constitute what our second principle calls “illegitimate encroachment” because it is democratically legitimated.

The deeper problem with Facebook is that users are not just customers, but also the suppliers of information that Facebook sells to generate revenue. Not surprisingly, Facebook tries to get as much of that information as possible. But because Facebook has few credible competitors, it has become increasingly difficult for users to threaten to sell their  information elsewhere.  As long as there is no genuine alternative to Facebook, only collective pressure through regulation will stop the company from taking more information than users want to yield. This makes banning automatic tagging even more legitimate than a democratic mandate alone.

- Sebastian Huempfer
Print Save
Published on: November 14, 2012 | No Comments

Leave a comment in any language

Free Speech Debate is a research project of the Dahrendorf Programme for the Study of Freedom at St Antony's College in the University of Oxford.