Facebook: Courts yet to give clarity
By Bala Shah

Even as the world become flatter and the economy global in every sense of the word,  much of the power on social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter still resides with a handful of people in USA. While Google may have granted its Indian offices the power to yank sites from Orkut when they deem fit, the fact is that Google HQ really calls the shots.

In the past, Indian victims of summary justice by Facebook, Twitter, and Google just grinned and bore it; ironically the same internet is giving them a platform to fight for justice. On Jan 25, I had given a few examples of how a few US-based executives at Facebook, Google, Twitter and other tech companies decided on the level of legal protection given to their members.

The LegalTech Trade Shows is one of the most important legal technology events in USA.  Yesterday, at the LegalTech Show at Hilton, New York, Facebook Deputy General Counsel Mark Howitson told the gathering that Facebook is looking for clarity about ‘protected’ data from a Federal Judge.  Despite having more than 350 million members and being in operation for years, no Facebook legal battle has reached higher American courts yet.

“ 
Facebook's legal department is ready for a fight. Almost every day, law enforcement officials and civil litigators request information from a user's Facebook account, Deputy General Counsel Mark Howitson told several hundred lawyers in a packed ballroom during his keynote address Tuesday morning at LegalTech New York. But he is still waiting for a case on Facebook's policies to go before a federal judge to define exactly what content on Facebook is protected so that it's clearer to everyone. There's some public misunderstanding about what Facebook's legal responsibilities are to protect user's privacy, he said. "We don't want to have to deal with these requests."

The hugely popular social networking site is loath to hand over any information on its 350 million users without a subpoena, and even then the company will only provide basic subscriber information unless that user gives his or her consent, Howitson says. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act, which requires the subpoenas and currently determines Facebook's legal policies, was passed in 1986, long before the advent of online social networking, let alone the smartphones through which many users access Facebook. A federal hearing could help clear up some of the confusion. "We're itching for that fight," he said.
“

(Techgoss had published the following article on Jan 25, 2010)

Facebook: Anti Indian sites OK
By Bala Shah

Even as the world become flatter and the economy global in every sense of the word,  much of the power on social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter still resides with a handful of people in USA. While Google may have granted its Indian offices the power to yank sites from Orkut when they deem fit, the fact is that Google HQ really calls the shots.

In the past, Indian victims of summary justice by Facebook, Twitter, and Google just grinned and bore it; ironically the same internet is giving them a platform to fight for justice.

Perhaps, the example closest to home is how Techgoss writer Techgirl was ejected from Twitter with giving any reason whatsoever.  Even though her satire Twitter account clearly used the word satire in two places, and linked to her satirical website, one call from Shashi Tharoor’s office was all it took to eject my fellow writer.  Only when American sites like Techdirt and India’s largest English newspaper Times of India picked up the story did Twitter contact Techgirl explaining how Shashi Tharoor’s aide had requested her ban.  Twitter may well want to do the right thing every time, but it is hampered by the fact that a few American employees sitting in USA have to make such calls about other countries.

More recently,  Indian mainstream media has been carrying daily reports about how some racist Australians are misbehaving with Indian youngsters in Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane.  The racist attacks have become so serious that the Indian Foreign Minister SM Krishna ‘warned’ Australia that this could affect bilateral relationships. So, you would think that everyone would do all they can to isolate racist extremists and support voices of moderation and peace in both countries?  Not Facebook!.  Facebook continues to host sites like I think Indian People Should Wear Deodorant, Stop Whinging Indians, and Australia: Indians, You Have a Right to Leave.  When Australia’s largest print media group Sydney Morning Herald contacted Facebook,  the social networking site declined comment. Australian racist Facebook site ‘F*** Off We’re Full and Speak English or Piss Off’ is growing at 2000 people a week.

Another example of this power imbalance between America and rest of the world was when Facebook decided to summarily snatch the Vanity URL of Harman Bajwa and hand it over to an American company.  Only when America’s No. 1 tech blog Techcrunch reported the story on Jan 23, did Facebook apologize and returned the URL to Harman Bajwa.

I would like to make it very clear that social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter are great for the public. They improve communications between family and friends as well human rights movements organizing protests to fight injustice.  Charitable campaigns leveraging the Facebook user base have raised substantial amounts for charity.

What these sites need to do is to appoint one person from every major country in the world to form a counsel of elders and work as honest brokers when sites need to be banned or someone ejected from Twitter. That will give them even more credibility in the market.

What do you think?