Parece que Google no está solo en haber llegado esta semana con un acuerdo con la Comisión Federal de Comercio, ya que la red social de Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook, ha anunciado un acercamiento con la FTC.
Como parte del acuerdo con la FTC, Facebook debe dejar claro a los usuarios cuando las acciones de la red social en torno a su información sea utilizada fuera de los parámetros establecidos por tus configuraciones de privacidad y que utilice un programa para proteger la privacidad de los usuarios y obtener la aprobación de los usuarios antes de compartir su información con potenciales socios de negocios.
STATEMENT OF THE COMMISSION
In the Matter of Facebook, Inc., File No. 092 3184, Docket No. C-4365
August 10, 2012
The final consent order in In re Facebook, Inc. that we approve today advances the
privacy interests of the nearly one billion Facebook users around the world by requiring the
company to live up to its promises and submit to privacy audits. Notably, Facebook will be
subject to civil penalties of up to $16,000 for each violation of the order. We intend to monitor
closely Facebook’s compliance with the order and will not hesitate to seek civil penalties for any
violations.We write to address the arguments raised by our colleague, Commissioner Rosch, who
opposes final approval of the order. One of his objections relates to the extent to which the order
would reach the activities of third-party “apps” downloaded by consumers while using the
Facebook platform. The Order broadly prohibits Facebook from misrepresenting in any manner,
expressly or by implication, the extent to which it maintains the privacy or security of any
information it collects from or about consumers. For a company whose entire business model
rests on collecting, maintaining, and sharing people’s information, this prohibition touches on
virtually every aspect of Facebook’s operations. Further, the Order sets forth clear examples of
how this broad prohibition would apply in connection with apps, by prohibiting Facebook from
misrepresenting (1) the extent to which it makes its users’ information accessible to apps;
or (2) the steps it takes to verify the privacy or security protections that apps provide. A
statement from Facebook about an app’s conduct may well amount to a promise that Facebook is
taking steps to assure the level of privacy or security that the app provides for consumers’
information. These provisions make clear that Facebook will be liable for conduct by apps that
contradicts Facebook’s promises about the privacy or security practices of these apps.Commissioner Rosch also opposes the consent order because it includes a denial by
Facebook of the substantive allegations in the Commission’s complaint. Based on this denial,
Commissioner Rosch asserts that the Commission lacks the requisite “reason to believe” that
Facebook violated Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act and a basis to conclude that
the settlement is in “the interest of the public.”We strongly disagree with Commissioner Rosch’s view that if the Commission allows a
respondent to deny the complaint’s substantive allegations, or use language that is tantamount to
a denial, there is no basis for the Commission to conclude that the respondent engaged in
unlawful conduct or that the consent is in the public interest. As Commissioner Rosch is aware,
an extensive investigation and detailed staff recommendation has given the Commission a
strong—not just a reasonable—basis to issue its complaint in this case and to conclude that both
the complaint and the resulting settlement are in the public interest. Here, as in all enforcement
cases, it is the evidentiary record developed by FTC staff during the course of its investigation,
not any ensuing settlement agreement, that forms the basis for action by the Commission. A
respondent’s denial of liability in a consent agreement does not diminish staff’s extensive
investigation or the ability of the Commission to find a reasonable basis to finalize a settlement
or to enforce an order that results from settlement negotiations. Moreover, express denials of
liability are consistent with the Commission’s current Rules of Practice.We view the final consent order in this matter to be a major step forward for consumer
privacy and hereby approve it.While we do not believe that a respondent’s denial of liability is reason to reject a
settlement that is in the public interest, we share Commissioner Rosch’s desire to avoid any
possible public misimpression that the Commission obtains settlements when it lacks reason to
believe that the alleged conduct occurred. We commend Commissioner Rosch for focusing our
attention on the issue; going forward, express denials will be strongly disfavored. We also
appreciate Commissioner Rosch’s suggestion that consent order language that the respondent
“neither admits nor denies” a complaint’s allegations may very well be a more effective way to
ensure that there are no misimpressions about the Commission’s process. Accordingly, we will
consider in the coming months whether a modification to the Commission Rules of Practice is
warranted.
Facebook no tiene que admitir ante cualquier irregularidad que haya eso previo a este acuerdo, como parte de los acuerdos. El incumplimiento de los términos del acuerdo podría resultar costoso para la empresa – cada violación estará bajo multa de $16,000 cada una y adicional, por los próximos 20 años, Facebook será auditada de manera independiente para velar el cumplimiento de los acuerdos.
