Google, however, insisted that the suit was groundless, saying that “EPIC is wrong on the facts and the law.” Late yesterday afternoon, the court agreed to expedite the case, giving the FTC until February 17th to respond to the suit, and EPIC until the 21st to file their reply to the FTC.

Now it looks like Google may have been ahead of the game the entire time. Politico is reporting this afternoon that they have managed to get hold of a report Google filed with the FTC on January 26th detailing the company’s compliance with the very consent order that EPIC insists their new privacy policy violates.The report details the steps that Google has undertaken to maintain the privacy of their users and to ensure that users are properly notified of the changes to Google’s policy. The report describes an “aggressive notification process” that Google intends to use “to promote user awareness of the current terms of teh Google Privacy Policy and to present users with clear information in order to exercise meaningful choice regarding their continued use of Google services.”

The report walks through the provisions of the consent order step by step and describes the steps Google has taken to make sure that their new privacy policy complies with it. The report is dated January 26, 2012 (two days after the initial announcement), and signed by Keith Enright, Google’s Senior Privacy Council. A copy of the report can be found here.

EPIC filed their suit against the Federal Trade Commission in federal court in the District of Columbia. They filed a complaint (PDF) and a request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (PDF) seeking to require the FTC to enforce the consent order and prevent Google from making the changes to their privacy policy.

Google’s attempt to create a simple, unified privacy policy for all their services has been met with a storm of controversy since it was announced late last month. Many expressed concerns about the impact of the new policy on their own privacy, and on Google’s access to their data. The situation drew the attention of Congress as well as the European Union, a prompted efforts by Google to set the record straight.

A request for comment from Google has not yet received a response. The new privacy policy is intended to go into effect on March 1.

The companies involved blame the consumers for not utilizing the tools that are in place. Consumers, on the other hand, think that companies need to be clearer on what they’re collecting and how they can opt-out if they want.

Should consumers or companies be blamed for online privacy concerns? Is one side at fault, or is it both, or neither? What do you think?

The debate over these areas is heating up again with the Commerce Department and the FTC expected to release reports on how to improve online privacy in the next couple of weeks. WebProNews spoke with Jules Polonetsky, the Director of the Future of Privacy Forum, who told us that the Commerce Department’s report was worth noting since it would outline where the Obama administration stands on the issue. Interestingly, no acting President or administration has ever before introduced or endorsed a federal privacy law.

Polonetsky told us that it was “highly unlikely” the U.S. would see privacy legislation this year but said that it would happen in the future.

“I think it’s clear that we are going eventually going to have a privacy law,” he said. “The question is, whether it’s gonna be a good one.”

“If we are able to craft privacy law that supports innovation [and] gives users more protection, we’ll win,” he added.

According to Polonetsky, the goal of the Commerce Department and President is to create a framework, in which companies and advocates develop rules for their own industries. If the FTC thinks these rules are adequate, they can create a safe harbor and make them enforceable.

There are, however, questions that remain since the administration may target certain companies and topics. In addition, there is the question of whether companies and consumer advocacy groups will agree to work together.

Up to this point, many of the people and groups that have spoken out against privacy legislation have said that tools already exist that allow consumers to take control. While Polonetsky said that consumers should be more proactive when it comes to sharing data and using online tools, he also said that companies should make it easy for consumers.

“If companies really got serious about delivering first for users, we wouldn’t need some of the proposals that are out there,” he said.

Through his experience as Chief Privacy Officer for both AOL and DoubleClick, Polonetsky told us that some companies understand privacy concerns and some don’t. There are also companies that want to “push the envelope” in a way that encourages others to do so as well.

Some companies believe that a self-regulatory approach would be much better than federal legislation, but according to the FTC’s first draft, the self-regulatory measures in place at that time were inadequate. Polonetsky said that, if companies really are against a national law, they need to prove that they are self-regulating.

“Any company that wants to avoid legislation ought to be really pushing to show how it is self-regulating,” he said.

On the consumer side, some don’t mind the tracking when it benefits them. For instance, many Amazon users like that the company sends them deals for items they want to buy.

“Let the users in, and guess what, they may be more than happy for you to know them well, if what you’re doing is making money serving them well,” Polonetsky pointed out.

Another angle to this saga is the fact that the European Commission is reportedly going to change its privacy directive as well. Polonetsky told us that the White House and Commerce Department pay attention to what Europe is doing because, over there, privacy is considered a human right. Historically, whatever Europe puts into law, the other countries follow suit. For this reason, the U.S. wants to show Europe that it is serious about privacy.

Although Polonetsky does not expect a privacy law during 2012, he did tell us that the year would bring lots of scrutiny for companies and lots of hearings.

“I’ve never seen as much scrutiny,” he said.

Even though the debate is nowhere near being over, the FTC and Commerce Department reports should shed some light into what we can expect going forward.

Are you in favor of privacy legislation, or would you prefer self-regulation in industries? Let us know.

The Fair Trade Commission and The Electronic Commerce Consumer Protection Act state that consumers have one month (30 days) from the time of purchase to claim a refund. With Google and Apple holding almost 85% of the app market it would be nice to see them in compliance with the act however, these are not Korean based companies and are therefore not subject to the regulations of the Act.

While domestic providers such as SK telecom’s T store, LG Uplus’ OZ store, and KT’s Olleh Market have all been compliant with the Act, The FTC is reluctant to take measures to control competitors abroad. Losing the option of purchasing apps from providers like Google and Apple altogether as a result of trying to force compliance could be a realistic fear. Last year, the Taiwanese City of Taipei issued a fine to the Android Market for not complying with their refund policy which resulted in Google removing the services from the Taipei market altogether.

[Source: Korean Times]

In an interview with the LA Times, EPIC’s executive director Marc Rotenberg said the group may file a complaint. The group has done so in the past, with regards to Google’s inclusion of YouTube videos in search results.

EPIC has put up the following statement on its site, citing concerns over Search Plus Your World:

Google is changing the results displayed by its search engine to include data from its social network, such as photos or blog posts made by Google+ users, as well as the public Internet. Although data from a user’s Google+ contacts is not displayed publicly, Google’s changes make the personal data of users more accessible. Users can opt out of seeing personalized search results, but cannot opt out of having their information found through Google search. Also, Google’s changes come at a time when the company is facing increased scrutiny over whether it distorts search results by giving preference to its own content. Recently, the Senate held a hearing on Google’s use of its dominance in the search market to suppress competition, and EPIC urged the Federal Trade Commission to investigate Google’s use of Youtube search rankings to give preferential treatment to its own video content over non-Google content. Google has also acknowledged that the FTC is investigating whether Google uses its dominance in the search field to inhibit competition in other areas.

There has been a lot debate around the new features, which make Google+ much more a part of Google Search. You can read more about Twitter’s public opposition to the features here. In a nutshell, Twitter thinks the changes make Twitter content less accessible to users. I don’t really see how this changes things in that regard. Twitter content has been less accessible since Twitter and Google failed to renew their realtime search/Twitter firehose deal last year (which I do also see as a negative thing).

Twitter and Facebook are both keeping Google from certain data, which Google would be able to use to improve as a search engine. Some argue, however that Google can get enough public data from Twitter and Facebook to work into the new offerings, at least to some extent. All of this is true.

On the one hand, Google could, for example recommend Twitter accounts and Facebook pages for celebrities, the way it is doing with Google+ profiles. On the other hand, Google doesn’t have the data from Twitter and Facebook to deliver the kind of personalized results it can offer via Google+. It’s easier for Google to improve the user experience, at least in theory, when they can give you any data that that is available (personalized data). Google+, which is really just an extension of the Google account itself, is Google’s way of trying to deliver this stuff, supplemented with other public data from places like Flickr, Quora, WordPress, etc.

Danny Sullivan posted this video of Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt talking about the lack of Facebook and Twitter data:

Part of Search Plus Your World is the addition of a special section for “People and Pages on Google+”. When I search for “music” I see profiles for Britney Spears, Mariah Carey and Busta Rhymes – Google profiles. Nothing but Google profiles in that section. However, the top organic result I get is for Yahoo Music. Not even Google Music.

I see the new features as more of a relevancy problem than an antitrust problem. If Google is taking what it knows about me, to personalize my search results, it should recognize that I use Google Music (I don’t use Yahoo Music), and that I don’t give a crap about Britney Spears, Mariah Carey or Busta Rhymes) – at least not as much of a crap as it would take to deem them worthy of that kind of placement for such a broad term. In fact, I would argue that my results would be much better for the user (me) if Google actually tapped its own Google Music property to understand the music I like. I don’t need Facebook pages or Twitter accounts for Britney, Mariah or Busta either.

Part of the reason I use multiple products from Google is because I expect there to be integration. It’s often disappointing when that integration is lacking. It makes things less usable. If I’m signed in to my Google account, I want easy access to content that’s related to my Google account. If I want things from Facebook or Twitter, I know where to look.

If you are signed into Google, you are signed into your Google account. You are signed into Google+. When you’re not signed in, well, that’s a different ballgame. One thing that is a bit iffy here, is that Google said in is announcement that Search Plus Your World would be for users that are signed in. The personal stuff is, but the People and Places stuff that highlights Google+ accounts still appears when the user is signed out.

That could be an issue.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center, or EPIC (yeah, EPIC), has sent a letter to the FTC asking that they look into Facebook’s new Timeline feature and whether or not it violates the previous privacy agreement the company reached with the FTC back in November of 2011.

In November, Facebook settled charges that it mislead consumers regarding their privacy, and failed to keep promises they made to protect that privacy. The settlement said that Facebook must be more forthright with its members and make sure that any changes that they make concerning privacy must be clearly and prominently spelled out.

This new EPIC letter to the FTC is particularly important because it was a letter from EPIC that began the FTC investigation that eventually led to the aforementioned settlement.

Having just reached a settlement with the Commission in which the company is required “to take several steps to make sure it lives up to its promise in the future, including giving consumers clear and prominent notice and obtaining consumers’ express consent before their information is shared beyond the privacy settings they have established,” Facebook is changing the privacy setting of its users in a way that gives the company far greater ability to disclose their personal information than in the past. With Timeline, Facebook has once again taken control over the user’s data from the user and has now made information that was essentially archived and inaccessible widely available without the consent of the user.

Basically, EPIC is concerned that with Timeline, Facebook simply chooses a bunch of information from your personal data and puts it out there for everyone to see. The impetus is on the user to edit their privacy settings in order to tweak their Timeline to only show stuff that they want it to show.

EPIC goes on to argue that since Timeline contains new categories like “Health and Wellness,” it is ripe to be used by companies mining for medical data. They argue that the Timeline makes it “a heck of a lot easier for computer criminals to unearth personal details that can be used to craft attacks.”

They also quote a source who thinks Facebook is out to “promote oversharing” and “abandon restraint,” which can be dangerous (no arguments here).

What do you think? Does the Facebook Timeline’s drudging of old posts and promotion of oversharing violate their privacy settlement? Should people be responsible for their own information – if you put it on Facebook, don’t expect it to be private unless you go to lengths to make it private? Let us know in the comments.

Do you think Google is anticompetitive? Let us know in the comments.

Here’s the letter in its entirety:

Note that the letter refers to Bing as “a partnership of Microsoft and Yahoo”. And that this is the only competition Google has. I’m not sure this is an accurate portrayal of the search industry. Bing is not a partnership of Microsoft and Yahoo. It’s Microsoft’s search engine. They are separate. Sure, they do have a partnership, and Bing powers the back-end of Yahoo, but they are still two different search engines. Granted, they are sharing an advertising platform now. Furthermore, there are other search engines out there, though their market share isn’t nearly as great.

Newer kinds of search engines have popped up in recent memory. Blekko and DuckDuckGo spring immediately to mind. Just because people aren’t using them as much as Google, doesn’t mean they aren’t free to compete. They aren’t being used nearly as much as Bing either. Bing has proven that marketing a search engine and making strategic partnerships can go a long way in gaining market share in the search industry.

The reality of the Internet and the search industry is much broader than competition among search engines. The fact is that people are obtaining information in a lot more ways now. They’re relying on search less for some of that. They’re turning to social media and different apps. A lot of iPhone users may be turning to Siri now. That’s just an example. Smartphones and tablets have opened up the world to a whole new world of apps for consuming information online. That itself could be just as big of an obstacle for Bing as anything.

For that matter, it could be a benefit for Bing if they play their cards right. If people have to rely on the traditional search engine less for some types of information consumption, perhaps there are opportunities for Microsoft to innovate more in the app world. I do believe the direction they’re going with Xbox and Kinect can have some pretty big ramifications. I wonder what a Bing-infused Xbox mobile device could accomplish for their share of the search market. Getting Xbox Live features on mobile devices is a start, but what about something more like what Sony is doing with the Playstation Vita, only Xbox style, taking advantage of the new Xbox platform.

A representative for the FairSearch Coalition sent us these comments on the letter from Rick Rule, head of the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division from 1985-1989, a partner at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, and outside counsel to Microsoft:

Senator Lee is right to call for careful scrutiny of Google, given the numerous allegations of antitrust violations by the company. The antitrust laws of this country prohibit companies like Google that dominate important parts of our economy from using their market power to destroy competition and to deny consumers of choice. Decisions from conservative courts make clear that the antitrust laws apply just as much to the new economy as to the old. If a company like Google is allowed to flout the rule of law, then free-market competition will suffer.

I too am a conservative who believes in the supremacy of free markets. I worked for President Reagan as the head of the Justice Department’s antitrust division. We understood then, as Senator Lee understands today, that in order for free-market competition to work, consumers and producers must be able to respond to the market’s “invisible hand” free from artificial restraints imposed by government, by cartels, or by monopolists like Google. The troubling allegations that Google uses its market power to impose such restraints are too numerous to ignore. As Senator Lee’s letter demonstrates, conservative principles demand that Google be held accountable to the rule of law.

They also sent us these comments from Mark Corallo, former Press Secretary and then Public Affairs Director for the U.S. Department of Justice under Attorney General John Ashcroft (2002-2005). He’s currently a spokesman for FairSearch:

Senators Herb Kohl (D-WI) and Mike Lee (R-UT) sent a letter to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chairman Jonathan Leibowitz requesting that the FTC conduct an investigation into Google’s business practices. They should be applauded. The rule of law is non-partisan. And that is all they are requesting of the FTC – make sure that Google is following the law.

My translation for the layman: “How can we trust Google?

FairSearch’s official statement is as follows:

FairSearch.org applauds Senators Kohl and Lee for urging the Federal Trade Commission to conduct “a thorough investigation” of allegations that Google’s business practices leverage the company’s monopoly power in ways that are contrary to antitrust law. This bipartisan letter validates the many concerns held by the members of FairSearch.org and thousands of other companies about the impact Google’s anticompetitive behavior has on innovation and consumer choice. We agree with the Senate Antitrust Subcommitee leadership’s conclusion that, given the inconsistent testimony of Eric Schmidt and the concerns raised by witnesses like Yelp and Nextag, Google can no longer simply be trusted to not abuse its dominant position in online search. We continue to encourage the FTC, along with state Attorneys General and the European Commission, to respond to the Senators’ call to investigate, as antitrust scrutiny is vital to ensuring consumers reap the benefits of robust competition and innovation in online search.

In October, FairSearch released a 44-page paper about Google’s “anticompetitive conduct”.

In June, Google put out a blog post discussing five principles that “will stand up” to scrutiny related to competition:

1. Do what’s best for the user. We make hundreds of changes to our algorithms every year to improve your search experience. Not every website can come out at the top of the page, or even appear on the first page of our search results.

5. Loyalty, not lock-in. We firmly believe you control your data, so we have a team of engineers whose only goal is to help you take your information with you. We want you to stay with us because we’re innovating and making our products better—not because you’re locked in.

And of course, Google always like to play the “competition is only a click away” card.

That’s a valid point though, is it not? Tell us what you think.

Related reading:

Google Panda Update: Antitrust Connections Being Tossed Around

Google Could Face Massive Fine Over Antitrust Complaint in Europe

Google Antitrust Complaint Filed With FTC

FairSearch Releases 44-Page Paper About Google’s “Anticompetitive Conduct”

Google: Here’s Who Doesn’t Think We’re Anticompetitive

FairSearch Blasts Google with “Searchville” Site

Google to FTC: These 5 Principles Will Stand Up To Your Scrutiny

According to SEMPO President Chris Boggs, the organization, which is made up of thousands of marketing professionals across 50 countries, wrote the letter in response to its members’ concerns. SEMPO felt it needed to voice these concerns and explain why its members want an “open, free channel of communication.”

Are you concerned that the government will change the Internet as we know it? Let us know your thoughts.

“Overall, the reason that we felt we needed to send this letter was because we were concerned specifically that the U.S. government is investigating the search operations of Google,” said Boggs.

“It’s not just because we felt we needed to go thank our sponsor, Google,” he added.

The letter calls for a free market approach to the Internet with little or no regulation. It focuses on Google, however, in light of the anticompetitive claims that ShopCity and others have made lately.

Although Boggs does not discredit ShopCity’s claims, he pointed that all businesses are subject to the same rules for both organic search and paid search. In addition, he believes the accusations would have a greater impact if the Google naysayers outnumbered the Google advocates. However, judging from SEMPO’s members, they do not.

“I would want to see a much larger sample of companies saying that it’s unfair, versus the large sample that I’ve seen that have spoken to us and messaged to the board of SEMPO their pro-support of Google and the way they do handle business,” said Boggs.

The letter makes clear that search engines were not intended to be regulated or subject to control from governments or commercial entities, saying:

Search is not a government-run utility, established by law and thus subject to bureaucratic oversight. It is a service provided to consumers and businesses by companies, which have set up their operations using their own principles, proprietary technologies and algorithms. Each company is free to develop its own approach, fulfilling the needs of its customers as it perceives them.”

It makes the case that a free market methodology is what made the Internet what it is today. As Boggs explained, this freedom has allowed the Internet to grow and produce platforms such as social networks.

“If we hadn’t allowed the growth of Facebook and Twitter, and even some of its forbearers like MySpace, we would be nowhere close to where we are now in terms of the ability to communicate and reconnect with old friends on the Internet, for example, and also to perform business,” he said.

In order to further this free market innovation, the SEMPO letter stated that the following 4 requirements were needed:

1. Willingness of legislative and regulatory government entities worldwide to allow the evolution of the Internet in as unfettered a regulatory environment as possible

2. Willingness of publishers and information owners to explore ways of sharing their valuable information with the search engines while not jeopardizing their revenue models

3. Consumers feeling a level of trust with search engines sufficient to allow the search engines to personalize results for them, maintaining privacy settings at a level comfortable to them

4. Understanding by marketers and advertisers that the search engines’ most valuable asset is the user, and therefore the search engines will often place the consumer experience above short-term financial gain

Although SEMPO has not received a response from the FTC, Boggs said that the organization was willing to work with it to help it further understand how the search industry works.

In terms of regulation, Boggs told us that he didn’t see any coming in 2012 but that he could see it happening in 2015 or 2016. If it does happen, Boggs said he hopes that it protects the innocent from potentially harmful content online instead of preventing a free Internet.

Do you think the government has gone too far or not far enough? Let us know in the comments.

It’s that part about the development and management of new and existing products that has led to some questioning just how much government intervention is actually going to affect Facebook going forward.

Lance Ulanoff, Editor-in-Chief of social media news site Mashable, goes so far as to suggest the possibility that the FTC just ruined Facebook. “You don’t think there’ll be damage from an agreement that ostensibly promises two-decades’-worth of governmental privacy policy oversight for the world’s largest social network? Sorry, but I have to disagree.”

He goes on to make the case that the whole thing could have huge implications for Facebook’s internal processes, particularly with the lawyers the company has appointed to the positions of Chief Privacy Officer, Policy and Chief Privacy Officer, Products.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg discussed them in a massive blog post response to the FTC’s announcement:

Erin Egan will become Chief Privacy Officer, Policy. Erin recently joined Facebook after serving as a partner and co-chair of the global privacy and data security practice of Covington & Burling, the respected international law firm. Throughout her career, Erin has been deeply involved in legislative and regulatory efforts to address privacy, data security, spam, spyware and other consumer protection issues. Erin will lead our engagement in the global public discourse and debate about online privacy and ensure that feedback from regulators, legislators, experts and academics from around the world is incorporated into Facebook’s practices and policies.

Michael Richter will become Chief Privacy Officer, Products. Michael is currently Facebook’s Chief Privacy Counsel on our legal team. In his new role, Michael will join our product organization to expand, improve and formalize our existing program of internal privacy review. He and his team will work to ensure that our principles of user control, privacy by design and transparency are integrated consistently into both Facebook’s product development process and our products themselves.

These two positions will further strengthen the processes that ensure that privacy control is built into our products and policies.

It’s that last sentence which lies at the root of Ulanoff’s point. This could have tremendous effects on Facebook’s ability to get out new products, at least in the manner in which they were intended.

It’s certainly a good thing for Facebook to protect the privacy of users as they intended, but as Zuckerberg pointed out, they’ve released tons of tools and resources for giving users more control.

“Overall, I think we have a good history of providing transparency and control over who can see your information,” he said. “That said, I’m the first to admit that we’ve made a bunch of mistakes. In particular, I think that a small number of high profile mistakes, like Beacon four years ago and poor execution as we transitioned our privacy model two years ago, have often overshadowed much of the good work we’ve done.”

He also reminded us of a number of specific things Facebook has done in the past 18 months to give users more control:

• An easier way to select your audience when making a new post• Inline privacy controls on all your existing posts

• The ability to review tags made by others before they appear on your profile

• Friend lists that are easier to create and that maintain themselves automatically

• A new groups product for sharing with smaller sets of people

• A tool to view your profile as someone else would see it

• Tools to ensure your information stays secure like double login approval

• Mobile versions of your privacy controls

• An easy way to download all your Facebook data

• A new apps dashboard to control what your apps can access

• A new app permission dialog that gives you clear control over what an app can do anytime you add one

• Many more privacy education resources

“In my opinion, the FTC agreement is not only bad for Facebook, but bad for its users too,” says iEntry CEO and WebProNews publisher Rich Ord. “Government regulation of the largest social network on the planet cannot be good.”

Still, others feel that the government did not go far enough. The Electronic Privacy Information Center (or EPIC), which is credited as an organization that brought the Facebook issues to the FTC’s attention, would have rather they “restore users’ privacy settings to pre-2009 levels.”

The FTC’s complaint lists a handful of instances in which it says “Facebook allegedly made promises it did not keep”:

In December 2009, Facebook changed its website so certain information that users may have designated as private – such as their Friends List – was made public. They didn’t warn users that this change was coming, or get their approval in advance.

Facebook claimed that it complied with the U.S.- EU Safe Harbor Framework that governs data transfer between the U.S. and the European Union. It didn’t.

Do you think the government has done enough for Facebook privacy, or has it gone too far? Tell us what you think.

Under the proposed settlement, Facebook is required to give consumers clear and prominent notice and obtain consent before information is shared beyond the privacy settings that have been established.

“Facebook is obligated to keep the promises about privacy that it makes to its hundreds of millions of users,” said FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz. “Facebook’s innovation does not have to come at the expense of consumer privacy. The FTC action will ensure it will not.”

The FTC lists the following examples where Facebook did not keep its promises:

• In December 2009, Facebook changed its website so certain information that users may have designated as private – such as their Friends List – was made public. They didn’t warn users that this change was coming, or get their approval in advance.
• Facebook represented that third-party apps that users’ installed would have access only to user information that they needed to operate. In fact, the apps could access nearly all of users’ personal data – data the apps didn’t need.
• Facebook told users they could restrict sharing of data to limited audiences – for example with “Friends Only.” In fact, selecting “Friends Only” did not prevent their information from being shared with third-party applications their friends used.
• Facebook had a “Verified Apps” program & claimed it certified the security of participating apps. It didn’t.
• Facebook promised users that it would not share their personal information with advertisers. It did.
• Facebook claimed that when users deactivated or deleted their accounts, their photos and videos would be inaccessible. But Facebook allowed access to the content, even after users had deactivated or deleted their accounts.
• Facebook claimed that it complied with the U.S.- EU Safe Harbor Framework that governs data transfer between the U.S. and the European Union. It didn’t.

Now, under the settlement, the FTC says Facebook is:

• barred from making misrepresentations about the privacy or security of consumers’ personal information;
• required to obtain consumers’ affirmative express consent before enacting changes that override their privacy preferences;
• required to prevent anyone from accessing a user’s material no more than 30 days after the user has deleted his or her account;
• required to establish and maintain a comprehensive privacy program designed to address privacy risks associated with the development and management of new and existing products and services, and to protect the privacy and confidentiality of consumers’ information; and
• required, within 180 days, and every two years after that for the next 20 years, to obtain independent, third-party audits certifying that it has a privacy program in place that meets or exceeds the requirements of the FTC order, and to ensure that the privacy of consumers’ information is protected.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg took to the company blog to weigh in on the whole thing himself. “Overall, I think we have a good history of providing transparency and control over who can see your information,” he writes. “That said, I’m the first to admit that we’ve made a bunch of mistakes. In particular, I think that a small number of high profile mistakes, like Beacon four years ago and poor execution as we transitioned our privacy model two years ago, have often overshadowed much of the good work we’ve done.”

Here’s a famous video where he’s being grilled by All Things D about privacy, and sweating profusely:

“I also understand that many people are just naturally skeptical of what it means for hundreds of millions of people to share so much personal information online, especially using any one service,” he continues in the blog post. “Even if our record on privacy were perfect, I think many people would still rightfully question how their information was protected. It’s important for people to think about this, and not one day goes by when I don’t think about what it means for us to be the stewards of this community and their trust.”

Zuckerberg says that in the last 18 months, Facebook has announced over 20 new tools and resources for users to have more control over their Facebook experience. He lists things like selecting your audience, inline privacy controls, the ability to review tags, friend lists, a new groups product, the tool that lets you view your profile like others would see it, double log-in approval,

“Even before the agreement announced by the FTC today, Facebook had already proactively addressed many of the concerns the FTC raised,” he says. “For example, their complaint to us mentioned our Verified Apps Program, which we canceled almost two years ago in December 2009. The same complaint also mentions cases where advertisers inadvertently received the ID numbers of some users in referrer URLs. We fixed that problem over a year ago in May 2010.”

Facebook has agreed to biannual independent audits by third-party auditors of its privacy practices for the next 20 years to ensure it’s living up to its commitments. The company has also created two new privacy executive roles, naming Erin Egan Chief Privacy Officer, Policy and Michael Richter Chief Privacy Officer, Products.

The first comment on Zuckerberg’s post is, “Can we get a dislike button?”