Zuckerberg Calms Stipulaton Over Facebook Changes

Who owns and controls your Facebook information? This has been a question many have debated over the weekend, but Facebook CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, finally gave us the answer (almost) yesterday.

There's always an uneasy balance between sharing information and retaining your privacy on Facebook, now with over 150 million users worldwide. The social network, five years old this month, updated its terms of service (those long pages of small text that too many of us almost never read) on February 4.

The changes went under the radar, only until a consumer-oriented blog attacked them: "Anything you upload to Facebook can be used by Facebook in any way they deem fit, forever, no matter what you do later. Want to close your account? Good for you, but Facebook still has the right to do whatever it wants with your old content," flamed The Consumerist in its interpretation.

However, Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook CEO, replied yesterday in a blog post: "Our philosophy is that people own their information and control whom they share it with. When a person shares information on Facebook, they first need to grant Facebook a license to use that information so that we can show it to the other people they've asked us to share it with. Without this license, we couldn't help people share that information."

But Facebook's terms of use are anything but simple. When you sign up to the social network, you "grant Facebook an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to (a) use, copy, publish, stream, store, retain, publicly perform or display, transmit, scan, reformat, modify, edit, frame, translate, excerpt, adapt, create derivative works and distribute (through multiple tiers), [...]" (Read the full terms here)

But isn't that conflicting with what Zuckerberg just said? Yes, it is, but the CEO goes on in his blog post saying "in reality, we wouldn't share your information in a way you wouldn't want. The trust you place in us as a safe place to share information is the most important part of what makes Facebook work." And quite rightfully, Zuckerberg continues saying they "still have work to do to communicate more clearly about these issues, and our terms are one example of this," as one doesn't really know what to expect of their privacy when signing up to Facebook.

So should we blindly trust that Facebook wouldn't use our information in any other ways than we would want it to? How would you like Facebook to deal with your personal information, messages and photos you share on the social network? Please let me know in the comments.

Facebook Changes Terms of Service

Facebook launched on Thursday a campaign polling users over its new draft Terms of Service (TOS). Applauded by advocates and seen as a revolutionary move toward democratic social networking, Facebook's new campaign is making its way on the Internet. But what are the new TOS all about?

Facebook created virtual Town Halls where users can comment and vote for 30 days (closing March 29) on the proposed draft Terms of Service. Two groups have been created: the Proposed Facebook Principles group, which highlights the rights and responsibilities of Facebook and its community and the Proposed Statement of Rights & Responsibilities group, which looks into the highly debated problem over who actually owns your content.

To refresh your memory, Facebook updated its terms of service (those long pages of small text that too many of us almost never read) on February 4. The changes went unnoticed, only until a consumer-oriented blog attacked them, sparkling an Internet-wide debate over why should the social network own your content. Shortly after, Facebook reverted to its old TOS, hence now polling users on what changes should be made.

Inside the Changed TOS

The most radical and noteworthy change in Facebook's proposed TOS addresses the concern of last week's debate -- who should own the content you post on Facebook. The new terms read: "You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, including information about you and the actions you take ("content")." That's a significant change from the previous grant of "irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to (a) use, copy, publish, stream, store, retain, publicly perform or display, transmit, scan, reformat, modify, edit, frame, translate, excerpt, adapt, create derivative works and distribute (through multiple tiers),"

So in the new draft TOS, by signing up to Facebook "You give us permission to use, store, and share content you post on Facebook or otherwise make available to us ("post"), subject to your privacy and application settings," which basically covers the fact that if you put for example a picture on Facebook you have to grant them the right to use in order for you to share it with you friends.

"You may delete your content or your account at any time with the understanding that removed information may persist in backup copies for a reasonable period of time (but will not be generally available to other users), and that content shared with others may remain until they delete it." That seems reasonable, considering that Facebook backs up its database on multiple servers and once you delete your account, the content you uploaded won't be "generally" available to other users.

As for "content that is covered by intellectual property rights (like photos and videos), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use, copy, publicly perform or display, distribute, modify, translate, and create derivative works of ("use") any content you post on or in connection with Facebook. This license ends when you delete your content or your account." The last phrase should put to rest any concerns that Facebook will us your pictures after you have deleted them or your account. However, a gap is left here over whether Facebook will obtain financial gain when using these pictures.

Not everyone will be happy

Voting over the new Terms of Service is now open and "If users approve the draft Statement of Rights and Responsibilities, then all future policy changes would be eligible for a vote by users, provided the level of intensity of user interest would justify it," reads a Facebook press release.

But Facebook's move cannot satisfy the 175+ million users of the social networks. Plenty of comments started popping up in the newly crated Town Halls with various opinions (of those who are actually on topic).

Blake Davis, a Facebook user, says: "Facebook is a private company and shouldn't have to solicit opinions of its users. Facebook is an oligarchy, not a democracy, and should be treated as such. Having people 'vote' on terms can only lead to havoc."

But another user, Albatros Jones disagrees: "Vote away! As with any other organization (i.e. HOA, School Groups, etc) the community creates the rules and determines what is appropriate within the community. Facebook has become too large; it isn't run by the creators anymore. If it was, the TOS that became so controversial would still be in effect and we wouldn't be having this conversation right now."

However, Facebook left plenty of loopholes in the draft TOS and judging by the number of comments already piling up on the Town Halls pages, opinions are divided. But such a debate Facebook created, in which millions have so much to say, could only lead to a discussion that will span way over the 30 days window the social network offered.

As usual, I am highly interested in your opinion on this matter. Are you happy with the changes Facebook made into its draft TOS? Which issues do you think were not addressed? Have you found any other loopholes in the TOS? Please let me know in the comments.

11 Year Old Murder Suspect Cinvicted

NEW CASTLE, Pa. - The family of 11-year-old Jordan Brown -- who's accused of killing his father's pregnant girlfriend in Lawrence County -- defended their young relative on Wednesday and said he couldn't have been jealous of the victim's biological children, as a prosecutor suggests.

"They've already convicted him and he didn't even go to trial," said Brown's uncle, Jonathan Krause. "He's an 11-year-old boy."

Earlier in the day, Brown was transferred from the Lawrence County Jail to the Allencrest Juvenile Detention Center in Brighton Township, Beaver County, where he'll await a bail hearing on a charge of homicide in Kenzie Houk's fatal shooting.

Brown's family expressed confusion over why the events took place and they, to a certain extent, refuse to believe it happened the way police say it did.

"I feel Jordan didn't do this in any way, shape or form, and if he did, we are going to support him regardless of what the situation might be," said Jonathan Krause, the brother of Brown's mother, Mildred Krause.

Jonathan Krause told WTAE Channel 4's Janelle Hall that the child lived with his mother until the age of 5, until Mildred Krause got sick and thought that Brown would have a better life with his father, Chris Brown, who still shares custody with her.


Kenzi Houk's family has said repeatedly that she loved Jordan Brown like one of her own kids. The Browns lived with Houk and her two young daughters, ages 8 and 4, at Houk's rural farmhouse in Wampum, where the 8-months-pregnant Houk was found shot in bed Friday morning.

"I just can't picture him doing that because he's such a sweet little boy," Jonathan Krause said. "You know, nobody wants to come forward and say they love that little boy. Well, we love him tremendously with all of our heart and we're going to try to help him the best we can."

Lawrence County District Attorney John Bongivengo has suggested a jealousy motive, theorizing that Jordan Brown didn't want to share his father's attention with Houk, the two girls and his new half-brother, who was due to be born in March.

"We're not charging an 11-year-old with a double homicide unless we're confident that he's our guy," Bongivengo said.


But Jonathan Krause said he doesn't believe that theory, because Jordan Brown also has a half-sister -- Mildred Krause's daughter from another relationship.

"I believe in my heart that he was neglected, that he was crying out for help and apparently nobody came to that boy's aid," he said.

Mildred Krause declined to comment about her son's homicide case on Wednesday.


State police said they believe Jordan Brown and Houk's youngest daughter were the only two people in the home with Houk when the shooting happened.

Lawrence County court papers from 1997 -- before Jordan Brown was born -- show Mildred Krause filed a protection from abuse order against Chris Brown, alleging that he showed "stalking, controlling behavior," and that he "threatened to break my neck" and "showed me his gun and permit and told me if I ever break up with him, he would kill me."

Court records show that in 1997, Mildred Krause, while pregnant with Jordan, filed a protection from abuse order against Jordan's father, Chris Brown, alleging that "he drinks heavily, he uses drugs and he has such a temper."

"When I told him i was going back to Florida, he tore up my brother's room. ... He also tried running me off the road when I had the baby with me. ... He told me if I ever broke up with him, he would kill me."

What's not explained is if that's true, why Mildred Krause agreed to allow Chris Brown to have custody of their son. Jordan Brown's defense attorney said the truth will come out and the district attorney, John Bongivengo, said he already knows it.

"Personally, and I can speak for the state troopers who worked on this, we're not charging an 11-year-old with a double homicide unless we're confident that he's our guy," Bongivengo said.

Loose Change Spetember 11 Documentary - Must Watch

Convinced? Do you believe it? It sounds pretty powerful to me.

Student Natalie Dylan from San Diego auctions her virginity, reportedly got bids up to $3.7 million

BY CATEY HILL

Going, going, gone! Sold to the highest bidder!

No, it's not a painting or a trip. It's Natalie Dylan's virginity.

Dylan, a 22-year old student from San Diego, is selling her virginity to the highest bidder, according to the Daily Telegraph.

She claims she has received offers up to $3.7M for a one-night stand with her, the paper reported.

Dylan says that 10,000 men have bid to have sex with her, according to the paper.

"I think me and the person I do it with will both profit greatly from the deal," Dylan told the paper.

Dylan wants to auction off her virginity to pay for her master's degree in Family and Marriage Therapy.

She was inspired to do this by the actions of her sister, Avia, who worked as a prostitute for three weeks to help pay for her degree, the paper reported.

"I know that a lot of people will condemn me for this because it's so taboo but I really don't have a problem with that," Dylan told the Daily Telegraph.

Dylan is confident that she is not degrading herself by auctioning her virginity. "My study is completely authentic in that I truly am auctioning my virginity but I am not being sold into this. I'm not being taken advantage of in any way," she told the paper.

"It's shocking that men will pay so much for someone's virginity, which isn't even prized so highly anymore," she told the paper.

Boy, 11, charged with killing father's fiancee

BY Elizabeth Hays

An 11-year-old Pennsylvania boy consumed with jealousy was charged with killing his father's fiancee - who was 8 months pregnant, police and relatives said.

Relatives said the youngster shot 26-year-old Kenzie Houk in her bed in the family's farmhouse in Wampum, Pa., because he was envious of the couple's unborn son, due in two weeks.

"It's tragic," said a relative who did not want their name used. "They were to be married. He was jealous."

Lawrence County police said the boy was charged with criminal homicide and criminal homicide of an unborn child.

Distraught family told the Daily News that cops said the boy shot Houk sometime around 8 a.m. Friday with his own youth-model shotgun.

He then calmly caught the bus to school with Houk's 8-year-old daughter, they said. His father, identified by family members as Chris Brown, was at work at the time.

"Chris was paying more attention to Kenzie and the new boy coming along so he was upset," said another relative.

Houk's body was discovered later that morning by her 4-year-old daughter, who ran out of the house crying, the relatives said.

The girl flagged down tree trimmers working near the house, about 35 miles northwest of Pittsburgh, and they called 911.

With News Wire Services

Dad at 13 - Mother at 15

By James Millbank

The father of the 13-year-old boy dubbed the ‘Babyfather’ yesterday paraded in a devil mask – as he became embroiled in a tawdry battle with his ex-wife to exploit the pitiful case.

The pair are understood to have both struck lucrative media deals, with the boy’s father boasting that he intends to make as much money as possible.

Alfie Patten’s relationship with 15-year-old Chantelle Steadman has prompted a political row about Britain’s moral collapse.

But as controversy raged, his divorced parents Dennis and Nicola had an unseemly row.

At first, Nicola angrily accused Dennis, 45, of selling their son’s story without her knowledge.

But within 24 hours she was said to be negotiating herself.

Last night it was claimed she had secured a five-figure deal.

Alfie was just 12 when he got Chantelle pregnant. Their baby girl, Maisie Roxanne, was born five days ago.

Dennis is said to have told a reporter: ‘I wish this baby had never been born but it has. Alfie is too young but I have to make the most of it. I’m going to make as much money as I can.’

As he spoke on Friday, his son, who looks no older than eight, was curled up in the back of his father’s car and crying audibly.

Dennis said: ‘I’m taking Alfie to London with me. I want to sell his story because I’ve heard people can get us loads of money for Alfie’s story.

‘It is an attractive story, Alfie is a father and he only looks eight years old! He is really upset but I have told him I will make him a packet.’

Dennis, a father of nine who also has three stepchildren, split from Nicola, 43, two years ago after she caught him having an affair with a 19-year-old.

He has three children with Nicola – Alfie, Joe, 16, and Isabella, 11 – and another son Leyton, 23, by a previous relationship.

Yesterday Alfie arrived home at his mother’s £395,000 home in a cul-de-sac in Hailsham, East Sussex, after spending the night at Chantelle’s parents’ council house in nearby Eastbourne.

His baby and girlfriend were absent after they too struck a deal.

Nicola, who had picked up Alfie and driven him home, rushed the boy inside with his hood pushed up over his face to hide from photographers. Alfie stayed in all day.

Nicola said: ‘It is all very upsetting for us: Alfie hasn’t seen the baby for a day. I am not going to talk because Dennis is doing a deal in London but he will be back later.’

In the background a young boy, believed to be a family friend, shouted: ‘We’ll do it for £100,000 and that’s it, £100,000 and that’s the price.’

However, on Friday Nicola had said: ‘I can’t believe Dennis sold Alfie’s story without telling me.

When I looked at The Sun and saw Alfie’s little face staring back at me I almost fainted.

Dennis has taken advantage of Alfie and Maisie. He called a newspaper yesterday and allowed photographers into the hospital.

Dennis has told me he has got thousands for Alfie’s story but I don’t know if it is true. He said he told Alfie, “Son, I will make you money” when he got him to pose with Chantelle. He is only a child himself.

Speaking to Alfie on the phone, Nicola said: ‘You would hate it here, Alfie. There are camera crews everywhere. I hope you are OK. Your dad shouldn’t have done this to you.

On guard was Alfie’s half-sister Jade, 19. She is also believed to have had a child at 13 and is Nicola’s daughter from another relationship.

Jade said: ‘Dennis is so out of order. Alfie is a scared little boy.’

Meanwhile, there were allegations Chantelle has had three boys staying overnight with her at home in the past few months and a number of boyfriends in the past ten months.

Sean Thomas, 20, claimed: ‘She is not a young innocent girl who got pregnant with the first boy who came along.’

But Chantelle’s mother Penny said: ‘It’s rubbish, Chantelle lost her virginity to Alfie.

Global Economy 2009

It was never meant to happen again, but the world economy is now mired in the most
severe fi nancial crisis since the Great Depression. In little over a year, the mid-2007 subprime
mortgage debacle in the United States of America has developed into a global fi nancial
crisis and started to move the global economy into a recession.

Aggressive monetarypolicy action in the United States and massive liquidity injections by the central banksof the major developed countries were unable to avert this crisis. Several major fi nancialinstitutions in the United States and Europe have failed, and stock market and commodityprices have collapsed and become highly volatile. Interbank lending in most developedcountries has come to a virtual standstill, and the spread between the interest rate on interbankloans and treasury bills has surged to the highest level in decades. Retail businesses
and industrial fi rms, both large and small, are fi nding it increasingly diffi cult to obtain
credit as banks have become reluctant to lend, even to long-time customers. In October
2008, the fi nancial crisis escalated further with sharp falls on stock markets in both developed
and emerging economies. Many countries experienced their worst ever weekly sell
off in equity markets.

Since early October, policymakers in the developed countries have come up
with a number of more credible and internationally concerted emergency plans. Compared
with the earlier piecemeal approach, which had failed to prevent the crisis from
spreading, the latest plans are more comprehensive and better coordinated. Th e measures
have reshaped the previously deregulated fi nancial landscape; massive public funding was
made available to recapitalize banks, with the Government taking partial or full ownership
of failed fi nancial institutions and providing blanket guarantees on bank deposits
and other fi nancial assets in order to restore confi dence in fi nancial markets and stave
off complete systemic failure. Governments in both developed and developing countries
have started to put together fi scal and monetary stimulus packages in order to prevent the
global fi nancial crisis from turning into another Great Depression.

Will this work? It is hard to predict, but doing nothing would almost certainly
have further aggravated the downside risks and more likely than not pushed the world
economy into a deeper crisis. It should be appreciated, however, that it will take time for
most of these policy measures to take eff ect; the restoring of confi dence among fi nancial
market agents and normalization of credit supplies will take months, if not years, if past
crises can be seen as a guide. Furthermore, it typically takes some time before problems
in fi nancial markets are felt in the real economy. Consequently, it seems inevitable that
the major economies will see signifi cant economic contraction in the immediate period
ahead and that recovery may not materialize any time soon, even if the bailout and stimulus
packages succeed. Moreover, the immediate fi scal costs of the emergency measures
will be huge, and it is uncertain how much of these can eventually be recovered from
market agents or through economic recovery. This poses an additional macroeconomic
challenge.

Most developed economies entered into recession during the second half of
2008, and the economic slowdown has spread to developing countries and the economies
in transition. According to the United Nations baseline forecast, world gross product
(WGP) is expected to slow to a meager 1.0 per cent in 2009, a sharp deceleration from the
2.5 per cent growth estimated for 2008 and well below the more robust growth in previous
years (table I.1). Th e baseline forecast assumes that it will take six to nine months for
financial markets in developed countries to return to normalcy, assuming central banks in
the United States, Europe and Japan provide further monetary stimulus from the end of
2008 and on into 2009.

Uncertainties surrounding this forecast are high, as shown by the confidence
interval around the baseline forecast. In a more pessimistic scenario, both the
fire sale of financial assets and the credit crunch would last longer, while monetary stimulus
would prove ineffective in the short run and fiscal stimulus would turn out to be too
little, too late. This would then lead to worldwide recession in 2009, with global output
falling by 0.4 per cent, and postpone recovery to, at best, the following year. In a more optimistic
scenario, a large-scale fiscal stimulus coordinated among major economies would
stave off the worst of the crisis, yet—for the reasons indicated—it would not prevent a significant slowdown of the global economy in 2009.