There was this from the Progress & Freedom Foundation: “By giving users powerful new tools to further protect their privacy, Facebook has employed a potent weapon to deal with marketplace apprehensions: self-regulation.”

This from Democratic Senator Charles Schumer of New York: “Facebook has heard the call of its users and realizes that much greater privacy protections are needed. This is a significant first step that Facebook deserves credit for.”

This from the ACLU: “After months of privacy-failing moves, Facebook is finally friending privacy again….While it’s true that users have more control than they did yesterday, there are still important steps that must be taken.”

And, finally, this from the Electronic Frontier Foundation: “The changes are pretty good, though more is needed.”

Consensus, then, seems to be that the privacy settings Facebook introduced today are an improvement over the old. That said, it’s important to remember that the old were sorely lacking, that the new were introduced under duress and that they DON’T do one thing that critics have been clamoring for: Make the highest privacy settings the default.

Which is really pretty weak, when you think about it, as Jeffrey Chester at the Center for Digital Democracy notes:

Facebook made some positive changes today, but only because of political pressure from policymakers and privacy advocates on both sides of the Atlantic. Mr. Zuckerberg’s failure to acknowledge the political realities don’t bode well for Facebook’s future approach to privacy: he appears to be living a Alice in Digital Wonderland fantasy, where he only makes changes on privacy because he has the goodwill of its users in mind. Just last December 9, after all, Facebook made one of its typical self-reverential announcements that it was “rolling out easy-to-use tools to empower people to personalize control over their information.” These changes triggered a user revolt, letters from Senators, an opinion ordering a reversal from the EU, and concern from the FTC.

Sometimes we move too fast.

That’s an apology of sorts, I suppose. But it’s not an apology for further loosening Facebook’s privacy safeguards or for the speed with which Facebook loosened them. In other words, it’s a comment on the execution of a policy, not on the policy itself.

By saying “we move too fast,” Zuckerberg isn’t admitting that Facebook was headed in the wrong direction with respect to user privacy; he’s saying Facebook was headed in right direction all along, just a bit too quickly–for those of us with reasonable expectations or privacy, anyway.

Which makes you wonder about Facebook’s claim that its changing privacy policy and tools reflect “shifting social norms around privacy.”

Do they really?

Or is Facebook itself attempting to shift those norms in its quest for revenue? After all, there’s great money to be made in the sort of behavioral advertising that Facebook’s user data makes possible–great money to be made in monetizing our privacy and reputations.

So the unveiling this morning of what Facebook claims are “enhanced, simpler” privacy controls is interesting, to say the least. How does a company so clearly prejudiced against privacy assuage concerns that it might violate privacy?

With a new set of “granular data permissions,” Zuckerberg said this morning (here’s Facebook’s guide explaining them).

“First, we’ve built one simple control to set who can see the content you post,” he explained in a blog post published to coincide with the announcement. “Second we’ve reduced the amount of basic information that must be visible to everyone and we are removing the connections privacy model….Third, we’ve made it simple to control whether applications and Web sites can access any of your information.” (Click image below to enlarge.)

Evidently, there will be a simple control that applies to all content retroactively and to new products going forward. If, for example, you set your preference to friends-of-friends, that will be your historic default as well as your default going forward.

For applications, access to member information has been “dramatically” limited. There will be a single check box to opt out of information-sharing with third-party sites. Said Zuckerberg: “The net effect of this is that all applications are going to have restricted access to your personal information.”

And for Facebook Platform, the company is adding an “easy” opt-out for instant personalization. Finally, Facebook is differentiating between “basic directory” information and the more personal information in its members’ profiles. Directory information must be public so friends can find one another, and “allowing people to find you on Facebook is a very different use case than sharing your information.”

As a privacy tool overhaul, this is fairly substantial. And it does seem to address many complaints about the previous system. But it doesn’t do one thing that many critics have called for: Make the highest privacy settings the default.

Why not? Said Zuckerberg: “We’re trying to make the system simple to use. Facebook has never worked in a way where you sign up and only your friends can see your personal information. The point of the site is to allow you to connect with new friends and friends of friends. And that’s always been a really important part of how Facebook has worked. It’s really important to help people share simply by default.”

With their friends, perhaps. But not with anonymous companies. In that case, you’d think most people would want to limit that “sharing” by default. But that would undermine Facebook’s business model, wouldn’t it?

Evidently, outrage over the company’s privacy missteps hasn’t been sufficient to effect that particular change. “We really think about the trust issues,” Zuckerberg explained. “A lot of people right now are upset with us about these changes, and I take that really seriously…and I don’t mean to diminish privacy concerns….but all these blogs are talking about Delete-Your-Facebook-Pages campaigns and we’ve seen no meaningful change to our usage stats.”

So how does Zuckerberg answer accusations that Facebook doesn’t care about privacy, that his company preys on people who have an expectation of privacy but don’t necessarily understand the implications of putting their personal information on Facebook?

“People perceive that we don’t care about privacy and that’s just not true,” he said. “People want to share information and there’s got to be a balance. They’ve got to have control over how they share their information and that’s where the world is going….We’ve learned time and time again that privacy is a sensitive thing. Now we feel like we have a privacy model that will scale as we add more users….And hopefully, we won’t be messing with it for a long time.”

• accelerometer support
• a Microsoft Location Service for the phones
• Microsoft Notification Service, known to other smartphone users as push notifications
• hardware-accelerated video playback with digital rights management
• internet information services smooth streaming for live video
• multitouch support
• camera and microphone support

Table stakes at this point, I suppose, but a robust feature list just the same. Announced along with it: A free suite of application development tools and a solid list of launch partners that includes the Associated Press, EA Mobile, Namco, Pandora and Sling Media, among others. One of the OS’s showcase apps: Netflix with “Watch It Now” 3G video streaming.

Impressive, no? Could this be the beginning of another application development gold rush? Microsoft (MSFT) clearly hopes so.

“More than half a million Silverlight and tens of thousands of XNA Framework developers are now Windows Phone developers,” Windows Phone 7 boss Charlie Kindel wrote in a post to The Windows Phone Developers Blog.

“Developers and designers can now build their code once and optimize it to take advantage of the unique capabilities of the phone, Web, PC or Xbox 360,” Kindel added. “Due to common shared libraries, controls and runtimes across these many screens and the cloud, developers now have the opportunity to reach over 1 billion customers.”

Still, it’s far too early to say what’s to come. It seems clear, however, that with Windows Phone 7, Microsoft could make the jump from mobile OS also-ran to contender fairly quickly–assuming the market’s willing, of course.

“We expect Apple to launch new iPhones in June that offer both a lower total cost of ownership and new functionality, potentially including gesture-based technology,” she wrote in a note to clients today. “As we’ve highlighted in the past, the cost of device + service plan is currently the biggest barrier to incremental demand in both mature markets like the US and emerging markets like China.”

Now, when Apple (AAPL) introduced the 3GS in 2009, it dropped the price of the iPhone 3G to $99, so it seems reasonable to expect the company to follow a similar pattern when it introduces a new iPhone. Might the price of the new device itself also be lower than expected? Perhaps. Certainly the fact that Apple was able to bring the iPad to market at $499 suggests it’s possible.

More intriguing than these ruminations on price, however, is Huberty’s mention of new “gesture-based technology.” The analyst doesn’t offer any details on what this might be, but presumably she’s referring to advances disclosed in some recent Apple patent filings.

Among the possibilities here: A touch-sensitive bezel that would turn the outer edges of the device into intelligent “sense lines” that give users quick and easy access to their favorite applications, and some camera-based swipe controls that offer one-handed control over a variety of iPhone functions.

Here’s a description of the latter from Patently Apple, which does a far better job explaining these things than I ever could.

[This] patent reveals yet another innovative concept that is designed to help users control their incoming calls and voicemail by simply swiping their finger over the external camera lens. It will control rewinding and fast forwarding voicemail. In addition, the new methodology will also enhance one handed navigation of Web pages, documents, a contact list or your iTunes library by simply swiping the camera lens in different swiping motion combinations. In the future, the iPad may be able to take advantage of this feature if the camera is positioned correctly. This would theoretically allow a user to simply flick a finger over the camera lens to turn the page of a book or scroll a webpage without ever having to move your hand.

Sounds pretty slick, yeah? Certainly, a feature like this would take smartphone navigation to a new level. Were it to be included in a next-generation iPhone along with a five-megapixel camera, LED flash and video chat support that’s rumored–well, Apple might not need the lower price point as Huberty suggests to juice demand for the device.

But if you’re part of the large group of people who think that nothing is really private on the Web and that everyone should see everything you do online, then you’re really going to like Facebook’s new privacy policy. It’s designed to get Facebook users to share as much as they can with as many people as they can–including people who aren’t on Facebook.

Facebook tries to explain the policy changes in a lengthy blog post here, and you can find a slideshow that accompanied a press conference the company just held here.

But that will make your eyes glaze over. Here’s the short version:

• Facebook is simplifying the privacy setting controls it offers users. So if you want your pals to see your keg stand from Saturday night, but don’t want your parents to be privy, you should be able to do that more effectively. The company is experimenting with different ways to present the controls.
• Facebook also wants to encourage people to use the “everyone” setting, which right now just means “every Facebook user.” But the company is going to eventually change that setting to mean “everyone on the Web”–meaning that Google (GOOG) users, marketers, whoever, will be able to find that stuff, too.
• Facebook wants to expand the amount of data its users share with the world because the company thinks that the more exposure data get, the more valuable the data become. But it is doing its best to tamp down complaints from users who accidentally end up exposing kid photos or bachelor party snapshots or whatever. Hence the new, improved privacy controls, which are being rolled out before “everyone” really means “everyone.”

I know, I know. That short version wasn’t that short. But you’re going to hear plenty more about this in the coming weeks. Consider this a first chapter.

I couldn’t find any columns on products you recommend for monitoring kids’ Web access and installing parental controls. I recently purchased a new computer for my 9-year-old daughter. I want to make sure she can only access specific Web sites and I want to protect her from inappropriate spam and chatting.

If you have a computer running one of the newer versions of Windows or the Macintosh operating system, I recommend using the extensive parental controls that are now built right into those operating systems. While you can never underestimate the ingenuity of computer-savvy kids, these built-in controls, if properly used, are generally harder to evade than the ones provided by third-party software.

I did recently review these built-in parental controls, which appear in Windows Vista, and in the Tiger and Leopard editions of the Mac’s OS X operating system. You can find that column at: ptech.allthingsd.com/20070614.

I want to switch to a Mac, but my life is on Microsoft Outlook, which is only available on Windows. Is there a simple way to convert all of this data to programs on the Mac?

There is a $10 program that performs this task. It’s called O2M (Outlook to Mac) and is from a company called Little Machines. It can be downloaded at littlemachines.com, where you also will find details about the Mac programs with which it works. This is a Windows program, which transfers your Outlook data into files you copy to your Mac. You then manually import these files into your Mac programs.

According to the company, the program exports Outlook email, email attachments, contacts and calendar appointments and allows you to import this data into Apple’s built-in email, address book and calendar programs, as well as into Microsoft Entourage, and other third-party programs.

Another approach is to install Windows on your Mac, and keep running Outlook. If you do this using the Parallels or Fusion virtualization programs ($80 each, plus the cost of Windows,) you can run Outlook simultaneously with your Mac programs.

Does the new version of Microsoft Office for the Mac work on pre-Intel Mac models?

Microsoft says it does, though I didn’t test it on one of these older machines. According to Microsoft, the new Office 2008 runs on any Mac “with an Intel, PowerPC G5, or PowerPC G4 (500 MHz or faster) processor.” However, you also need a relatively recent version of the Mac operating system, either the new Leopard edition, or the latest update (called 10.4.9) of the Tiger edition.

You can find Mossberg’s Mailbox, and my other columns, online for free at the new All Things Digital Web site, http://walt.allthingsd.com.

But how much is too much when it comes to shelling out a little more for convenience, and are you really getting what you pay for? This week, I tested what could be thought of as the ultimate convenience: a box that plugs into your television and Internet connection, letting you download movies whenever you want to watch them. The box costs $399 and doesn’t include the price of movies, which must be rented or purchased for fees as high as $4 or $20 each, respectively.

This box, called Vudu, comes from a Silicon Valley company of the same name (www.vudu.com). Vudu’s biggest strengths are its easy setup, good picture quality and simple user interface, easily navigated using a scroll-wheel remote control.

Vudu costs $399 plus prices to rent or own each movie title.

If the director yelled “Cut!” right here, Vudu would be a box-office smash. But actually using this device is just one problem after another. For starters, though Vudu says it has relationships with the major Hollywood studios, many of the 5,000 titles it offers don’t seem to be popular by mainstream standards. Lots of them are old or obscure. For instance, you won’t find any of the “Pirates of the Caribbean” movies, but how about a 1984 sci-fi/fantasy movie called “The Ice Pirates,” instead?

If you do find a movie that you’d like to watch, you must have a bandwidth speed of at least two megabits per second to download it instantly; millions of broadband homes have slower connections than that. Vudu offers to measure your bandwidth on its home page before you buy it. I tested Vudu for a week on a typical home-type DSL line, and my connection only clocks about 1.5 Mbps, so it took me about 45 minutes to download each movie.

While Vudu’s $399 price tag might take some getting used to, its fees for buying or renting each movie could be harder to swallow after a month’s worth of use: as much as $80 if you bought one top-tier movie a week. Worse, you have to pay in advance. Rather than charging your credit card on a pay-as-you-go basis, Vudu customers must choose a $20, $50 or $100 amount at setup from which movie fees are deducted. When your account hits $0, the amount selected at setup is charged and the debit process begins again.

On top of all this, Vudu relies on a peer-to-peer network system for faster downloading. So, essentially, this company is using your bandwidth to help it save money it would have otherwise spent on its own servers and bandwidth.

I set up Vudu in a snap, plugging it into three things: a wall outlet, the back of a high-definition Sony Bravia television and an Ethernet cord. Wireless connections won’t work with Vudu without a special “bridge” or a power-line adapter. Once Vudu turned on, a friendly voice guided me through setting it up, and I got started in minutes.

Vudu’s home screen is broken down into five menus: Find Movies, New Releases, My Movies, My Wish List and Info & Settings. I used the tiny remote, which fits perfectly in a hand, and rolled through menus using its scroll wheel. This wheel can be pressed down to select something, saving me from glancing down at the buttons. Also, Vudu uses an RF (radio frequency) antenna so you don’t have to point the remote at it.

In Find Movies, I looked through 18 genres, including biography, romance, family and historical. A sorting feature can filter movies by release date, MPAA rating, critics’ rating, studio, availability to rent and availability to own. An on-screen alphabet can be used to type in names of actors, directors or movie titles; the scroll wheel speeds up this process.

Parental controls, which are only accessible with a special code, can be set to block a child from buying or renting movies with certain ratings.

Vudu likes to think of itself as the instant-gratification alternative to running to the video store. But not many people I know still go to Blockbuster for a DVD; instead, they use mail-delivery services like Netflix. Compared with the 85,000 titles offered by Netflix, the selection at Vudu is pretty slim. A more similar comparison might be Amazon’s Unbox for TiVo, which has slightly less than 5,000 movies.

Though I couldn’t find numerous titles, I did discover plenty of movies I’d never heard of. A search for last year’s “Casino Royale” returned Robert DeNiro’s “Casino” from 1995, as well as two Asian films, “Casino Tycoon” and “Casino Tycoon II.” Since I never saw Helen Mirren’s “The Queen,” I tried to find her Oscar-winning performance on Vudu. But the closest I came to royalty were “Barbarella: Queen of the Galaxy,” an alternative name for the cheesy 1968 Jane Fonda sci-fi flick, and “Prom Queen,” which fell under the Gay and Lesbian category. I tried to laugh this off by watching Steve Carell’s “Evan Almighty.” But typing “E-V-A…” into a title search only returned “Deliver Us From Eva,” an R-rated 2003 comedy starring LL Cool J.

I searched and found the same three titles on Netflix, though Amazon Unbox only had “Evan Almighty.”

I downloaded two romantic comedies: “Music and Lyrics,” starring Hugh Grant, a $4 rental, and a Diane Keaton movie called “Because I Said So,” which I bought for $20. I also rented “Zodiac,” a suspense movie starring Jake Gyllenhaal, for $4. Movies that you own never expire, but rented flicks must be watched within 30 days and expire 24 hours after you start watching.

In the case of each movie, the original estimates for time to download were daunting; two started out by estimating “Available in a few hours” and one movie’s estimate read “Available in a few days.” But all three finished downloading in about 45 to 50 minutes. Only one movie can download at a time.

While watching movies, the remote’s scroll wheel can be used to fast forward or rewind scenes. Scrolling faster moves you farther ahead or back (the fastest jump moves you 30 minutes); the slowest scroll moves you ahead or back five seconds.

Vudu might cast a spell on users who don’t mind its poor selection and high-bandwidth requirement to deliver instant downloads. But for me, the convenience of Vudu is no convenience at all. As is, its lackluster selection, high prices and slow downloads make it more of a letdown than anything else.

Edited by Walter S. Mossberg

Email mossbergsolution@wsj.com