I won’t regurgitate the details, if you’re reading this you probably know what it’s about. Let’s look at this sensibly;

1. Facebook is a web site – it’s on the World Wide Web, a globally-accessible, publicly-available open network.
2. Your Facebook is protected by a password- that’s all. No secure server, nothing. So it’s not that secure anyway.
3. You accepted the terms & conditions and everything that goes with them.
4. You choose what information you put onto Facebook. Anything that can be seen publicly is as a result of your actions.

Bearing this in mind I find it hard to see why so many people are so up in arms that their ‘data’ is out there.

I will concede that Terms & Conditions are often pretty damn cheeky with lines like “we reserve the right to change these T&Cs without actually telling you” which is, in my opinion, unethical and yes, significant changes should be subject to acceptance of new terms and conditions, just like you have to accept new friend requests.

That shows that the problem is not in what Facebook is doing so much as what it asks you it can do. You give it permission to do what it’s done, then later when it actually happens and you actually realise what the unintended consequences were, you attack Facebook.

Facebook is only to blame for it’s lazy Terms and Conditions. They’re certainly not the first though and won’t be the last.

Thing is, we all know none (or very few) of us actually bother to read the T&Cs and that is no-one’s fault but our own. It’s kinda hard to expect anyone to do that when their privacy policy is reportedly longer than the U.S. constitution. I don’t honestly expect anyone to actually read that.

What I would like to see however is people taking ownership of their actions. Realising that the data is out there because they made the decision to put it out there, rather than being horrified when Facebook changes the way it publishes that data.

Facebook can only do that because you gave it your data in the first place. I only put information on the web that I’m comfortable telling any random stranger on the street. Therefore, I’m not bothered how Facebook uses that information (including making it available to third party apps & web sites) because it’s nothing sensitive.

The bottom line is, take ownership of your data. Don’t give it away if you wouldn’t be willing to tell a stranger, ’cause that’s all Facebook is – a stranger – despite the close relationships you may maintain on the site.

Related posts:

• Google, I Want You to Have My Data. Please!
• A short note for Mr Stott before he comes to see us all…
• I don't want broadband, leave me alone!
• Business: stop forgetting your Twitter handle!
• I wrote to Michael Fabricant MP about train times data and the new national address book

There is no web 1.0 or web 2.0 or even web 3.0. There is only the evolving web. I despise the use of the phrase “web 2.0″ when it relates to web design, for example – it implies that it needs to have cool jQuery and Ajax stuff going on. You know what, if you’re building a site figure out your user need and build it using the right technologies. Don’t just build a “web 2.0″ site ’cause it’s what all the cool kids are doing.

Okay, rant over. But who’s to say I’m right. Disagree at will using the comments.

This was posted via web from Philip’s posterous

In fact, it turns out the new fees are almost identical to PayPal’s fees.

Plenty of sellers have been complaining about the move but is it a deliberate attempt by Google to get rid of them?

The previous fees were very, very low and along with the free processing offer based on AdWords spend, Google Checkout was a very attractive alternative to the well-established PayPal.

Could this all have been a ruse to get testers for Checkout, though? It’s possible that Google was simply entering in at such a low price to deliberately get thousands of e-commerce sites on board to test the waters.

Now they’ve decided they don’t want to be in the market afterall they’re deliberately matching PayPal’s prices knowing that PayPal is a better service. It becomes a no-brainer for Checkout customers to switch to PayPal or another service.

So, nonsensical pricing structure, or deliberate exit strategy?

Related posts:

• Google, I Want You to Have My Data. Please!
• WordPress support – success!
• There is no web 1.0, 2.0 or 3.0
• The choice is clear for out-of-work journalists: pay £2,750 or… less than £100
• Yahoo Sucker Punches Microsoft

Wow. That’s a lot of money.

We, the tax payers (so if you don’t pay taxes you can ignore this bit), are taking on RBS’ “toxic assets” to the tune of £325bn.

Wow. That’s even more money.

Now, you’re probably thinking “well we own the bank now so we (the tax payer) can run it how we want it!”

Yes!

Actually, no. “We”, despite owning 84% of RBS have no voting rights.

That’s right, we own the thing, we’ve pumped loadsa money into the thing but we have about as much say in the damn thing as we do in whether or not it rains tomorrow.

Instead, we’re now paying for the former CEO, Sir Fred Goodwin – the man who was in charge when we had to bail RBS out – to live a life of luxury on £650,000 a year.

That’s 26 times the national average! Not a bad payout for being instrumental in bringing the economy to it’s knees. (Mental note: start a bank tomorrow, good pay even if you do a bad job.)

I know I’m being very defeatist, negative and probably over-dramatic but I’m annoyed.

The Government is trying to uncover those people using tax havens like Switzerland while at the same time spending massive amounts of public money on bailing out banks without actually giving us any say in what happens. It is our money they’re using afterall. (I feel a petition coming on.)

I don’t blame anyone for avoiding tax now. If I was at or above the higher earnings limit I’d hide my dosh away in Switzerland, too! I’d rather burn 40% of my hard earned income myself than give it to the Government to do the same.

At least I could keep warm that way and avoid paying exhorbetant gas and electricity bills just to stop myself from dying of hypothermia.

Anybody else agree? Or am I being over-dramatic? Would you hide your money in a tax haven? Do you?

Related posts:

• Ethics and Corporation Tax
• This Will Stop You Having Regrets
• Does nationalism matter?
• Tagging Alzheimer's Sufferers
• I asked the Prime Minister about accountability within the ‘Big Society’