The problem with Facebook is that it has moved from a network site for the IT geeks into a global phenomenon, and a central platform for everybody to share and to gather information.

Our lives are essentially stored in one place – our likes, our dislikes, who we love, who we hate, what we did at the weekend and, frequently, our religious and political preferences are often stored in some way or another.

There have been many examples emphasising the problems that these social sites can cause, from employers using it as a forum to check on prospective or even current employees, to individuals using it to harass and victimise third parties.

Extensive studies have concluded that people act in very different ways through a site that gives them a "shield" which they would otherwise not have face to face. They are changing the way we live, how relationships are formed and how communities operate.

More worryingly, these sites are being used by businesses on the assumption that the information is accurate and reflective of the relevant person.

The use of this information may result in consequences that last many years. In many instances, it is possible that the detrimental effects may be a cause of hacking and misuse of data, rather than individual foolishness.

The outrage following Facebook's decision to amend its terms and conditions, so as to allow it greater control and use over content uploaded on to their site, is a further example of the impact that social networking is having on our day-to-day lives.

This clearly demonstrates that the site represents very different things to different stakeholders. What is a plaything to subscribers is a business to the site owners and operators, and is a referencing tool and potential weapon to others.

So why did Facebook's recent "we want it all" change cause such outrage among users? Haven't we already foregone any right to protect our personal secrets through our continual willingness to accept the operating standards of the social networking site without paying any attention?

In any case, isn't the information "already out there"? If we are not paying to use a site, do we have a voice when we don't like the way the owners of the site run their own business?

Was Facebook right in its decision to amend the terms and conditions? Giving them the benefit of the doubt, we have to assume that the site is being used in a way that is other than was envisaged when the original terms and conditions were drafted. Commercially, therefore, its decision is understandable.

Morally, the position has to be in favour of the individual. The opportunity to have a single site that allows you to interact with friends and colleagues, and so on, will work only if it is built on an element of trust.

As individuals, we want to be able to express ourselves (within social and legal limits) without fear of retribution.

Putting aside commercial and moral issues – is it lawful? Inevitably, it depends. Legislation such as the Data Protection Act 1998 (the Act) requires information used (or "processed") to be "fairly and lawfully" obtained.

Stripped to its basics and ignoring inevitable exemptions, this generally means that the individual has consented. Facebook will argue that users had a choice – they agreed and could continue to use the site, or they could stop.

The reality is somewhat different as many individuals find their lives are now heavily entwined within the social forum created by their using Facebook.

In addition, the nature of information held on the site will often include sensitive information relating to religion or even sexual preference. Such information requires "explicit" consent from the individual and so it will depend in part on how Facebook attempted to gather such consent.

In reality, the terms and conditions of online websites usually carry as much interest as the microscopic terms we are often asked to sign in our non-cyber lives – we see them, we ignore them and then we click "accept" having little or no understanding of what we have just agreed to.

The current law on what you can and cannot do with information is so convoluted that businesses can often spend vast amounts of resource and time just trying to decipher what they are allowed to do. Take the Act – a wonderful example of legislation that says a lot but provides little information. It is a requirement of the Act that information is not "excessive" and that it is held only for a "reasonable" time.

Unfortunately, neither are well defined and businesses are left to second guess what that actually means in practice.

Secondly, businesses are looking for ways to ensure that they can target opportunities in a more effective way – allowing a wide use of data would allow greater commercial opportunity. Only last week we saw that the giants of Google, Yahoo and Microsoft have agreed to an advertising code which will regulate how they market.

In the past, sites have used cookies as a means to watch what type of sites we visit so that marketing can be targeted at us – all of this "information" is in the public domain the second we log on. Even our IP address can be used to establish profile preferences.

The consternation caused by the change in terms resulted in Facebook backing down, and so the issue relating to the site has probably diminished. However, the wider issue about how our information is used and passed on remains.

In reality, the internet has resulted in our personal information becoming more readily available and our reluctance to bother reading what we enter into has meant that many of us have already consented to its use in manners wider than we had ever considered.

The message?

Read the terms before clicking "I accept" and consider carefully what information you hand over.

Garry Mackay is managing partner in the Bristol office of Ashfords Solicitors.