The Use of the Terms of the Terms of Use?

Read this article

Giles, Martin. "Privacy 2.0." Econimist 28 Jan. 2010: n. pag.1-2 Web. 24 Apr 2010.

In a series that Martin Giles wrote on social networking, he focused one installment on the evolving role that privacy plays. In particular he examines a tension that is steadily rising between users and their social network providers due to privacy settings. Giles article addresses the long standing contention that social networking sites place their privacy policies on obscure pages or simply make the process of finding the privacy policies unintuitive. Part of the reason for this Giles explains is the idea of “privacy salience.” He explains that social networking sites are hesitant to alert users to the privacy policies as it has the potential to make users less likely to share their personal information, even if comprehensive privacy controls are available to the user. If more users have their profiles restricted that ultimately leads to less traffic on the website and less traffic on the website means companies won’t pay to advertise on the website, essentially drying up the social networking sites revenue stream. Giles explains that this measure on the part of the social networking sites is part of their business strategy and points to the example of the discrete changes in the “Terms of Use” policy in Facebook user accounts. When Facebook alters their “Terms of Use” a user may have to go and reset their privacy settings manually and if the user is unaware of this certain elements of their profile may receive a higher amount of traffic from other users who would have been restricted in the past. Giles also mentions that privacy advocacy groups see this “shuffling of the deck” as a means of competing with upstarts such as Twitter by Facebook artificially making its ad space more valuable. Another element of this issue that Giles raises is the scattering of personal information of a user’s profile. By spreading the user’s data such as their contacts, their profile, pictures, posts, and other content across multiple pages as a means of making it a monotonous process of transferring information if the user chooses to switch to another social networking site. In the world of social networks their success is measured in their ability to keep traffic up and to keep users coming back.

Giles article is an important part of the debate over whether users should share their private information with social networking sites as it communicates the debate from the perspective of the social networking sites themselves. He does not excuse the potentially ethical issues that social networking sites are accused of instead he gives rational reasons as to why social networking sites operate they way they do. Giles communicates the all too often neglected fact that social networking sites are businesses that offer the vast majority of its services for free. Essentially Giles explains social networking sites have to get their revenue from somewhere and advertising will continue to be their primary source of income as no successful alternatives have been established. Giles article illustrates the concessions that users choose to make for membership in a social networking site is the privacy of personal information to be used in aggregated form for advertising in lieu of annual subscriptions fees. While there are still those who perceive Facebook’s surreptitious data gathering as unethical, Giles provides a response from Facebook’s head of public policy, Elliot Schrage. When the criticism of Facebook’s data mining policies is discussed, Schrage argues that “behavioral advertising” happens on many websites where the user is never notified whereas Facebook alerts the user that this will when they open their account. While there are those who might not by swayed by Schrage’s defense in the article the fact that Giles included it in the piece with out debate or rebuttal is an important element. Giles allowed Facebook to speak for it’s self rather than depending solely on it’s critics and thereby better informing his and his readers opinion. Even though Giles makes it clear that he is not neutral in the debate, he maintains a sense of balance in his approach where he allows both sides of the issue to be heard. Giles is able to both play devils advocate and present his own opinion without diminishing it, which is what makes his article an important resource in the debate over personal privacy and social networking sites.

Man Awarded Nobel Prize For Mapping Facebook's Privacy Settings

Read this article

Naone, Erica. "Social Networks Keep Privacy in the Closet." Technology Review. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 11 Jun 2009. Web. 21 Apr 2010.

In her article Erica Naone explores the implications what she describes as the “double life” of Facebook. She maintains that, “On one hand, they encourage users to share as much personal information as possible, making it easy to post photos, videos, notes, and links. But at the same time, these sites have to safeguard that information and limit how it is shared between users and beyond their own walls.” Naone reasons that conflict results when the social networking site creates privacy settings which are then buried or spread over multiple pages so that they are not intuitively accessed. While the social networking sites may provide these settings it appears that the sites want to keep their users from really thinking about their privacy. Naone also presents the opinion of Joseph Bonneau, a University of Cambridge researcher who is studying social networking sites. Bonneau’s perspective is, “To the social network, your value increases the more data you share on the site.” The more the user shares, the more targeted the advertising becomes and ultimately more revenue for the social networking site. Bonneau reasons that the sites ultimately want an almost constant flow of observable information and that, “The best way to achieve that is to not bring up the concept of privacy.” Naone also discusses research that has been done on 45 social networking sites to evaluate their privacy controls and policies. According to the study while there is a great range of the quality of the sites settings two of the worlds most popular, Facebook and MySpace, rank somewhere in the middle. The researchers attributed the rankings of Facebook and MySpace to the fact that they offer more applications than the other sites, but in general they found that the more popular a site was the better its privacy settings were. In the study there was one consistent theme that the sites often leave user profiles almost 100 percent public by default. Naone concludes her article be explaining that the shear number of privacy settings social networking site provide their users with can actually make it harder to maintain control over their private information.

Naone’s article was an important source to consult in regard to whether users should trust social networking sites with their personal information because it evaluates the possible economic motivations social networking sites may have. Naone does not simply rely on rhetoric to convey her opinion but also presents reputable evidence to support her view that it is in the social networking sites best interest for their user’s profiles to be as open as possible. By utilizing the University of Cambridge study Naone is able to logically illustrate the apparent disconnect between Facebook and MySpace’s privacy settings and their popularity. This is an important element to consider because it asks a fundamental question that while the social networking sites may provide their users with privacy settings, what motivates them to help there users utilize them? In addition to that the privacy settings can change at any time and can actually make it harder for the user to maintain a secure profile. Unlike some of the other articles that have explored the topic social networking and privacy Naone looks at the issue with a skeptical eye. Rather than simply excusing the business practices of social networking sites as the price one pays to join, instead she assumes the viewpoint that a user’s personal information may be disseminated needlessly to the financial benefit of the site. While Naone does point to the side of the debate that is perceived as negative she also draws attention to the various solutions that may solve the issue, which adds more credence to her arguments than simply decrying what she sees as wrong and leaving it at that. Her submission of a solution suggests that she has considered the issue from differing points of view and that she is confident that there is a better way for social networking sites to handle their user’s private information. In almost any debate there is room for the voice of decent and Naone assumes that voice when she draws attention to the potential that there may be a conflict of interest in how social networking sites handle their user’s information.

Oh, Be Careful Little Hands What You Post

Read this article

Randal, David, and Victoria Richards. " Facebook can ruin your life. And so can MySpace, Bebo...." Independent 10 FEB 2008: n. pag. Web. 17Apr 2010.

The article presented by David Randal and Victoria Richards is an important piece to consult as one questions whether users can trust social networking sites with their personal information because they give a number of real life examples as to how a users life could be impacted by online posts. They also place special significance on the legal impact it could have on an individual. The writers examine the possibility that rather than simply worrying about embarrassing photos posted of them users should also be concerned with what they themselves say and do as it is possible it could be used against them in a civil trial or cause them to lose their job. The primary danger Randal and Richards present is not insidious hackers who access the personal information of others, thought they do acknowledge their impact hackers have. Instead Randal and Richards assert that the true danger lies in one destroying his own reputation by controversial posts and posting photos that are inappropriate in most contexts. They give the example of a person who has had there their insurance company deny them coverage due to posts the user had made. It is the examples given of everyday people that resonate the most, illustrating how when people, as many do, assume they have complete anonymity from those in their professional realm when using a social networking site. While emphasizing personal responsibility, Randal and Richards also discuss the rationale of those who scan other people’s online profiles. They do not vilify the police, school faculty, or potential employers, presenting there searches as legitimate over site, necessary to weed out undesirable applicants and to uncover illegal behavior or destructive behaviors. Randal and Richards article also discusses a number of the all too often untrue assumptions users hold when they are posting information on social networking site. They conclude by making an appeal to using discretion as many people have found pleasure in reconnecting with friends, while a growing number are finding out that they may have set themselves up for legal trouble.

The importance of Randal and Richard’s article is illustrated in the growing reach of people to gather information on others. They explore the potential hazards that can arise when a person uses a social networking site. They ground the article in the mind of the reader by peppering examples of people who have had to suffer the consequences of posting information online. In the examples given, various groups such as potential employers and even insurance companies will use a person’s online profile as a means to disqualify a person from a job position or medical coverage. Randal and Richards also describe how this process is being adopted by current employers to keep tabs on their workers. In one example given a man was fired from his job because he had posted a picture of himself from a party he was at on a day he had called in sick. Though extreme, the examples Randal and Richards use serve as a caution to the readers that a users postings whether they display immature behavior or are seemingly innocuous, those postings may come back to haunt the user. The writers also discuss how the fear of one’s digital life coming back to haunt them has caused a number of online business’ that specialize in internet expunging have become popular. These services go through the sites chain of command from the individual all the way to the ISP controller. The majority of Randal and Richards article hinges on the fact that people, whether through naivety or apathy, assume that they have a high level of anonymity when they are posting information to a social networking site. But Randal and Richards sought to demonstrate to their readers that nothing posted online is in a vacuum. Randal and Richards article is important because it brings some of the assumptions around privacy on a social networking site to light and give reasons as to why those assumptions may be dangerous to one’s reputation. It is also important because it directs the question of whether social networking site can be trusted with their user’s information in unexpected directions namely authorities in a user’s life.