>This has been a really hot button item for the last couple of years with
regards to Facebook, and to a lesser extent Twitter and other web 2.0
technologies. Email is kind of a different animal because it isn't as
proprietary as the others and there is a much greater expectation of privacy
associated with email. 

Ouch!  I think you should check into this- much grater expectation of
privacy by WHOM?  Remember the case with Yahoo about the soldier who was KIA
and it took 5 months and a court order to clear up who had the right to see
this http://bit.ly/9vaIsR  The argument during this case related to privacy
was that the ISP had the rights, not the estate of the deceased.

Also, not sure it's really a difference related to the proprietary nature
(FB, Twitter, etc) as it is the manner in which it's stored in 'strings'
rather than attributable to an individual user- your stuff is all
intermingled with that of others who reply to it. The one case where this is
a bit "weird" though is if you remove a "friend", all of their posts on your
page disappear, but replies they made in threads started by others who are
still your friends remain. =)

And keep in mind with Twitter anyone who wants can RT a post, so then it
becomes part of THEIR content, and so on and so on.  That content won't be
deleted until the end of the Twitterverse.


>The big providers that Alex mentioned all have clear policies regarding
inactivity and deletion of content (4 months for Yahoo, 9 months for Gmail,
270 days for Hotmail); whether or not you believe they completely delete it
or not is up to you, but that is the kind of thing, if discovered, would
really hurt a brand name. And the big problem for most of these web 2.0
darlings is figuring out how to monetize all this information.
>

Another one you may need to check into... I have G-mail content that is
YEARS old and still plenty accessible, including attachments to sent and
received messages.  And with YAHOO, I have Groups that I set up 7 years ago
that remain active and haven't had content purged. 

>A year ago this month there was a big uproar over Facebook changing its TOS
to basically state they could do whatever they wanted with your information
even if you chose to delete your page. Privacy groups got ahold of the
changes and Facebook eventually reverted back to the old TOS that put a
clause back in saying that deletion implied the license would automatically
expire, protecting your data from future use. 
>

That's a piece of the story, but the second go-round with FB changed things
back a bit, and the re-revised TOS went back to a lot of what was in the
first TOS that caused the uproar, but this time, they had it all reviewed
for legal issues first, and they exercised their rights to do whatever they
damn well pleased with anyone's info.   

BUT, thanks to our friends North of the Border, one thing that was made MUCH
clearer was what happens to data from "deactivated by user" as opposed to
"deleted by user" accounts. They retain the deactivated for a (unknown)
period of time and deleted accounts CANNOT be reactivated, as FB won't
expend the effort to 'roll back the clock' and gather it.  And they had to
make another distinction for "deleted by provider" accounts- those where FB
made a determination you failed to comply with their policies or TOS, they
notified you your account was 'suspended' and until you agreed not to
violate that specific TOS again, your content was put on ice... AND if you
ever violated it after agreeing you wouldn't, your account is automatically
deleted.

>Ultimately it boils down to the business model and privacy expectations of
the service being provided. Facebook and Twitter have relatively low
expectations of privacy and do not have particularly established or
lucrative business models so they will continue to push the privacy envelope
in attempts to make this mountain of data they are sitting on a mountain of
cash. Right now the web 2.0 technologies offer the path of least resistance
and if they are eventually overcome, we might see some push into the privacy
expectations of email as well.
>
>My own opinion completely!

Again, it's important to define WHOSE privacy you're talking about- the
subscriber to the services or the service provider.  As David Gaynon so
astutely said, you clearly need to understand WHO OWNS THE CONTENT before
you can have any expectations of personal privacy. Currently, it's a piece
of cake to capture photos, notes, posts, whatever anyone of your friends, or
friends of friends, or even suggested friends (who haven't put controls on
'their' posted content) without telling them or them ever being informed.

And as far as not having "established or lucrative business models", don't
kid yourself... these folks are doing fine.  If they weren't others wouldn't
be sniping at their market share.

My opinions as well, but I think many of them are shared by others who have
been burned or read countless stories of other that have been.

Larry
[log in to unmask]

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]