<Deep breath.> Ok.

Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook.com, recently told a live audience that the age of privacy is now over and if he were to create Facebook again today, user information would be publicly available rather than private, as it has been for years.

And what is his reasoning, you might ask? Why would users be perfectly fine with anyone accessing their private information? Why, because WE ALL BLOG, OF COURSE!

(Oops, sorry, the caps slipped out.)

Yes. Society is one big giant blogger and it’s Facebook’s duty to follow suit. Don’t believe me? Words from the wonder kid himself:

And then in the last 5 or 6 years, blogging has taken off in a huge way and all these different services that have people sharing all this information. People have really gotten comfortable not only sharing more information and different kinds, but more openly and with more people. That social norm is just something that has evolved over time.

We view it as our role in the system to constantly be innovating and be updating what our system is to reflect what the current social norms are.

OK, Facebook, listen up! You’re missing three very key important points here:

ONE. Yes, blogging is big. Pretty big, in fact. But Facebook-worthy big? Hells to the no. As Marshall Kirkpatrick writes, “Not very many people write blogs, almost everyone is on Facebook.”

And he’s right. I can think of numerous friends (Facebook friends, fancy that!) that do not blog, nor have any interest in blogging. Ironically, I can even think of privacy-zealot friends, who rightfully freaked out about the Facebook privacy changes this past December, who blog.

TWO. Which brings me to my second point: The difference between blogging and Facebook’s outlook on privacy is that with blogging we 100% control the information. I’ll say it again for emphasis: I ONE HUNDRED PERCENT CONTROL the information I put on any blog I own. Whereas, where it looks like Facebook is headed, they could completely take away that control. They could give my personal information to whomever they like, whenever they like, however they like and not tell me. And some things, like my profile picture, I can’t do anything to stop them from sharing that with the world. Does that make me feel comfortable? All warm and fuzzy on the inside? Absolutely not.

THREE. My last point: I expected better from the world’s largest social networking site. Facebook, really? Do you hear the tone of disappointment in my voice? Because it’s there. It’s really, really there.

You are not a follower. You shouldn’t be a follower. You didn’t get to where you were by following trends but by breaking through with something different and new. So don’t go trying to conform to “social norms” (which I would still argue, as who the h-e-double hockey sticks would find giving away their privacy, no problem, “normal”?)

What you could have done (what you should have done) was become a LEADER in privacy. Show the rest of those silly social networks how IT IS DONE. Boom goes the dynamite, done. Give your users somewhere they can feel safe, where they can interact with their friends and not have to worry about who is seeing what. And who is selling what.

TO WRAP UP. I think there’s any opportunity here, for some young whippersnapper, to seize. If a respectable Facebook competitor would emerge, built on a platform of trust and privacy, I could really see many people, including my lovable privacy-zealot friends, switching over immediately and completely purging their Facebook accounts.

The problem right now is there is no real competitor to Facebook, and this results in users having very little choice and say in what happens with their accounts, as we’ve seen over and over with the Facebook redesigns and policy changes in the last couple of years (seriously, how do they manage to NOT LISTEN AT ALL?!).

So, young whippersnappers: hop to! Give Facebook a run for its money! And leave our information to us. We know what to do with it. Trust us.

(I think I did maybe a B+ on the “Avoiding Caps” scale. I’ll work harder next time. Maybe.)

The petition states the following:

Dear Minister of Industry,

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) was created for the purpose of ensuring broadcasting and telecommunications systems serve the Canadian public and ensure that Canadians have a wide variety of options to create and view works of media or communicate across the country and the entire world.

We, the undersigned, believe that the CRTC has become a burden on the Canadian public and are failing to perform their duties in the interest of the Canadian public and that of a fair and unbiased telecom policy.

In the last 3 years, we have seen the CRTC give undue preference in the interest of commercial entities and their preference for traditional business models over competing models that would create competition and help ensure that new business models can be created to entice and prosper original Canadian productions.

In the case of Bell Canada vs CAIP, involving the use of deep packet inspection (DPI) on Bell wholesale clients, the CRTC ruled in favor of Bell Canada to allow them to continue the use of deep packet inspection activities on wholesale customers without their permission or consent regardless of the implications for the end user customers. We believe this action greatly impacts the Canadian public’s choices, competition in the broadband market and may violate privacy laws based on the Privacy Commissioners findings.

In the case of Cybersurf requesting to match speeds of that for Bell retail customers, the CRTC ordered Bell Canada to produce a new tariff to match speeds for wholesale customers. Bell submitted a revised tariff to the CRTC, however the revised tariff did not fulfill the requirements as set out by the CRTC in Telecom Decision CRTC 2008-117. Bell proposed to offer lower speed tiers and introduce UBB (usage base billing) in lieu of matching speeds. The CRTC decided to accept the tariff on an interim basis with no logical explanation. This is not only anti-competitive but shows a clear bias towards Bell Canada.

These are only two of several instances in the past few years that show the CRTC is incapable of upholding the telecom act and the interest of the Canadian public. We demand that the commission is immediately dissolved and a new commission created and appointed based on the following criteria:

1) The commission members must not be appointed solely based on their career history
2) The commission members must not only be comprised of ex-telecom employees
3) The commission should be more transparent to the Canadian public about regulatory issues
4) The analysts should be more involved in the regulatory process to ensure that decisions are handed down in a fair and balanced manner

We hereby request that the CRTC be dissolved and a new commission formed immediately to ensure that the regulatory process and competitive environment remain in tune with the needs of the Canadian public.

Sincerely,
The undersigned

If you feel strongly about this like I do, please go here to sign the petition. You will have to confirm your signature via email within 3 days but that is it.

At the time of signing, there were 3,613 signatures. Please help in making this number as big as possible. Hopefully in doing so, they will hear us.

“Someone needs to step in and audit how these lawmakers come to their conclusions as predatory tactics, which last I checked were not allowed in Canada, are being allowed to march through the regulatory gates without any resistance, all while laughing in the face of both Joe competitor and Joe public.”

– Rocky Gaudrault, CEO of TechSavvy

This article, highlights the issues Canadians have been facing for some time in regards to net neutrality and fighting the “Big Boys of ISPs”. The state of Canada’s landscape is absolutely ridiculous. We pay more for internet and face more restrictions than most developed countries.

In France, you can get an 18 MB/S connection with no cap PLUS 70 TV channels PLUS Unlimited VOIP for $66 a month. And if you’re under 26? Go ahead, take another 10% off.

Compare this to Canada: For $60 a month, you can get 10Mb download speed with a 512kb upload speed and a 60GB cap. Wow. What a steal! (Thanks to @ehacke for the information on this.)

Now the CRTC has agreed to approved a request by Bell to implement a pay per usage of $0.75 for every GB over 300GB their users use. What this basically means? They’ve taken away the ability for smaller ISPs who are renting portions of Bell’s infrastructure to differentiate themselves from Bell’s service.

It seems the CRTC is against fair competition and an open marketplace. Rocky Gaudrault’s call-out to the CRTC and higher ups in the government to take an in-depth investigation into how these decisions are made is fair and I support this 110%.

As Canadians, we should really take a stand and let these bullying ISPs know that we are NOT pleased and this is NOT okay. Please email your local MP to let them know that you are pissed off that this is happening. You can find out who your local MP is here.

I wish we didn’t feel so powerless as paying customers though. Capitalism, you have failed YET AGAIN.