Privacy, Who Needs Privacy? Part III

(CNN) -- Facebook wants your address and mobile phone number.  But it's not sure exactly how to ask.

It's a complicated digital courtship, particularly because Facebook doesn't just want this data for itself -- it wants to "share" this info with all of its friends, which in this case happens to be app developers (think FarmVille, Compare People and Where I've Been -- all that non-Facebook stuff that pops up in your news feed).

 We have two problems here, folks.  One is that this is a clear case of selling out privacy for convenience, and the second is how shady Facebook was about telling people this was going to happen.  As the article above states, the update was released so late Friday night that they were accused of burying the release, and when the statement was released, it was far from clear:

"... that it was making "user's address and mobile phone number accessible as part of the User Graph object."

Facebook doesn't need another black eye, and as a regular user I don't need another hoop to jump through for simple minimum privacy.  There is a convenience factor to log in to certain apps or services, but it's a small benefit when compared to the cost of your contact information and old childhood stories to be released to the world.  Regular users are becoming wary of Facebook, which means they should work to improve their customer relationships and avoid destroying any remaining trust with lame announcements and even worse excuses when the truth catches up to them.

For those who harbor any doubt as to what this could mean:

The blog Inside Facebook writes:

"Most critics have immediately focused on how greedy developers will request the data in order to spam users, which is a valid concern. But the access will also enable the creation of apps that keep friends connected via SMS and facilitate e-commerce by pre-populating delivery details.  Though the risks are high, Facebook should not impede innovation for fear of spammers, but instead push forward while minimizing negative outcomes by helping users make more informed decision(s)."

Which, of course, is exactly why they announced it in the most confusing way possible, and decided to "push forward" to so we don't have to suffer the indignity of providing a secure username and password at the sites we use.  For a final touching kiss, they blame those goshdarned critics for bringing up a valid concern and tell you the risks are high but e-commerce (theirs) is more important.