In fairness to Facebook, the company only intended to share users’ data with their permission.  It was quick to back down in response to criticism, too.  So a thought about political grandstanding might not be out of line.

But Barton and Markey still had lots of questions.  Eleven questions and requests, in fact, ranging from "Please describe the process Facebook is currently employing to adjust the feature prior to re-enabling it" to a three-parter about Facebook’s privacy policy.

Markey argued in a statement, "Facebook needs to protect the personal information of its users to ensure that Facebook doesn’t become Phonebook.  That’s why I am requesting responses to these questions to better understand Facebook’s practices regarding possible access to users’ personal information by third parties.  This is sensitive data and needs to be protected."

Barton then added, "Facebook’s popularity has made it a leader in innovation and we hope they will also be a leader in privacy protection.  The computer – especially with sites like Facebook – is now a virtual front door to your house allowing people access to your personal information.  You deserve to look through the peep hole and decide who you are letting in."

The congressmen gave Zuckerberg until February 23rd to respond.

Edward Markey and Joe Barton, who are members of the Bi-Partisan Privacy Caucus, stated, "Given the number of current users, the rate at which that number grows worldwide, and the age range of Facebook users, combined with the amount and the nature of information these users place in Facebook’s trust, this series of breaches of consumer privacy is a cause for concern."

Then the pair of lawmakers listed an intimidating 18 questions or requests for Zuckerberg to answer.

The first few questions mostly aim to determine the nature and extent of the recent privacy slipup.  Next, the letter digs into what Facebook did to prevent the problem, and finally, what the company will do to ensure nothing else happens.

Markey and Barton didn’t give Zuckerberg any firm ultimatums.  Unfortunately for Facebook’s CEO, they "respectfully request a response" by Wednesday, October 27th, and just so happened to mention pending privacy legislation.

As always, we’ll see what happens.

The amount of user’s personal information collected by Google, Yahoo and other online companies has drawn criticism from privacy advocates and Google has been urged to post a link on its homepage that takes users to its privacy policy.

In May, Texas Rep. Joe Barton, the senior Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, asked Google for information about the company’s privacy policies since it purchased DoubleClick.

Google said in a letter dated June 6, that it would be in favor of a federal Internet privacy law.

In the letter from Alan Davidson, Google’s chief lobbyist wrote,"Google supports the adoption of a comprehensive federal privacy law that would accomplish several goals such as building consumer trust and protections; creating a uniform framework for privacy, which would create consistent levels of privacy from one jurisdiction to another; and putting penalties in place to punish and dissuade bad actors."

Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, questioned Google’s support of a federal privacy law. Rotenberg told Reuters that when companies endorse a "comprehensive law" they typically want something that would override stricter state laws.

Just as the Representative from Texas did last year, Barton again posed questions to Google regarding the protection of consumer information. The approval of Google’s purchase of ad network DoubleClick magnified the concerns about Google having control of an overwhelming amount of details about people and the ways they use the Internet.

(An aside to Rep. Barton: your House website’s latest news is dated December 18, 2007. You might want to get a summer intern to update that at least to 2008.)

Barton’s latest request to Google and its CEO, Eric Schmidt, said, “It is critical that Google’s and DoubleClick’s policies and procedures for handling this information be transparent, and that every effort is made to protect consumers’ data.” Reuters noted Barton’s latest concerns.

He also asked if people would be allowed to opt-out of data collection by Google and DoubleClick, and how Google planned to merge DoubleClick’s data with existing consumer information already held in Google’s servers.

Google’s Adam Kovacevich told Reuters: “We have had a constructive ongoing dialogue with Rep. Barton’s staff about our privacy practices, and while the integration of DoubleClick into Google is still underway, we will of course respond to his questions.”

During the acquisition process, Scott Cleland testified in September about the astonishing reach Google stood to gain in consumer information with the DoubleClick acquisition.

“If a business wants its content to succeed on the Internet, it would have no choice but to use the Google-DoubleClick-YouTube online advertising platform,” said Cleland in September 2007. “No real competitive choice.”

Barton has a position on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, putting him in a place where he can make political hay of Internet causes. Declan McCullagh obtained Barton’s blistering little screed to Schmidt; for some reason the Congressman’s otherwise up to date website does not have it posted.

The letter requests a reply to its lengthy contents by December 18th. Barton wants the Committee to “better understand the privacy and consumer protection implications” of Google’s proposed acquisition of DoubleClick.

If such a response were to contain detailed answers to its questions, the reply would become the hottest read in the technology industry. Several questions deal with how Google delivers advertisements to users of its services, along with Barton’s questions on privacy and data retention.

We think Google would sooner switch its famed cafeterias to using school lunch menus before feeding this kind of information to Congress.

follow me on Twitter

Texas Republican Joe Barton penned his signature as one of a dozen fellow minority party members asking for a hearing about the Google and DoubleClick privacy issues related to their deal.

A Reuters report said Illinois Democrat Bobby Rush, head of the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection, has not commented yet on the letter. The report cited Barton’s opinion about Google and privacy, conveyed by a statement from the Representative:

"Google is an information colossus already, but add on DoubleClick’s marketing power and you produce a single commercial entity that can know more about you and me than nearly everybody but mom and the IRS," Rep. Joe Barton of Texas said in a statement, referring to the tax-collecting Internal Revenue Service.

"It seems to me that policymakers should know more about Google’s intentions than we do, and a serious hearing to get at the facts looks like a very good idea," Barton said.

It’s nice to hear House Republicans discover an interest in the privacy of American citizens. But a posturing hearing over Google’s virtually-approved treasure hoard of information from DoubleClick to complement its existing search data means little without sterner legislation proposed to protect the millions of people profiled in that data.