Facebook and the demise of individual privacy – a flawed assumption or serial disregard?

24/04/2010 jhiroberts 18 comments

Founded in February 2004, Facebook has fast become a popular and accepted means of communication with the site’s advertised over “400 million active users” (Facebook n.d). This site has changed the way that many net citizens communicate and interact. Along with these changes many questions are also now being raised about the extent to which privacy is being relinquished by users who join the site. With a reported “5 billion pieces of content (web links, news stories, blog posts, notes, photo albums, etc.) shared each week” (Facebook n.d ) it is little wonder that privacy has become one of Facebook’s greatest challenges.

In this paper I will discuss the nature and extent of privacy breaches on Facebook. Additionally, I will argue that the overwhelming weight of evidence points to a blatant disregard for, rather than a erroneous assumption about the privacy rights and concerns of their members is at the heart of the demise of individual privacy on Facebook.

It is possible that Facebook management initially believed that users who posted a lot of information onto their Facebook page and were most active would also be those who were least concerned about the controls surrounding their privacy and the use of this information. In other words the processes of disclosing information on Facebook and the desire for appropriate controls around that information are inversely linked. However, a recent paper in Cyber Psychology and Behavior states that:

“Contrary to expectations, information disclosure and information control were not significantly negatively correlated, and multiple regression analyses revealed that while disclosure was significantly predicted by the need for popularity, levels of trust and self-esteem predicted information control. Therefore, disclosure and control on Facebook are not as closely related as expected but rather are different processes that are affected by different aspects of personality.” (Christofides, Muise, & Desmarais, 2009 p 341-345.)

This raises the alarming possibility that a user who posts a great deal of information online may also be someone who could be absolutely devastated at the loss of their privacy and the perceived misuse of this information. If we give Facebook management the benefit of the doubt that this was indeed their original assumption it could have only been a very short lived assumption as their members have consistently and loudly expressed their concern at the way their information is used and can be abused on this site. Through the use of the examples below I will attempt to show that serial disregard is the underlying cause of repeated privacy concerns with this site.

The potential for abuse of personal information and harassment have long been a concern for many Facebook members who add large quantities of personal information to their pages. This information can contain highly sensitive data about the individual; for example home address and personal email accounts. .

“Participation in social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace appears to increase the likelihood of being targeted by cyber bullies. Some 39% of social network users reported having been harassed online, compared with 22% of teens who don’t participate in such sites.” (Claburn, 2007).

“Facebook is a stalker’s paradise. It provides users with the unique ability to chart the dramas, relationships, beliefs, interests, travels and traumas of their old flames, future loves, friends and enemies alike.” (Sena-Becker, 2007)

With all of this sensitive information held within the confines of the site, it is a wonder that Facebook management has not made member privacy a major concern. Users deserve a safe place to store their personal information for their friends to see. Users deserve a place where they know their personal information is safe and cannot be taken and used against them. However members use their profiles they should not have to worry about adding information for the fear that this information maybe used against them. Despite these repeated concerns Facebook has failed to take adequate action. Something as easy as making new members aware of privacy settings or creating an online course for members to take highlighting the privacy settings available to them would have been appropriate.

Facebook has long been known as a market leader in the social networking space. With this position comes an increased responsibility to ensure users’ privacy is upheld. In spite of Facebook’s understanding of what its users expect and require from the site, their actions seem to be very much more skewed to the contrary – less member privacy . This can be demonstrated by Facebooks launched of a new feature in September 2005 – the “News Feed’. This feature gleaned information from a user’s profile and updated it to a central page. So when a user logged into facebook they could see, in one central location the activities of all their friends. For example it would be immediately apparent what new friends or any new additional information they had added to their page .What was so interesting about this new feature was that before its launch if any particular user wanted to see what their friends had been upto, they would have had to go into each individual profile and search for the information. This new feature was promoted to users as a time saving feature: “Facebook initially promoted the News Feed feature as a convenience, with the promise that it would make new information easier than ever to find” (Hoadley, Xu, Lee, & Rosson, 2010). However this new feature was devoid of any privacy controls, so users could not control what others saw.

The lack of privacy controls coupled with the new transparency of users’ profiles created a huge member backlash. Within a few days of the ‘News Feed’ feature going live thousands of users had joined groups within Facebook demanding privacy settings be added. “Within days of News Feed implementation, hundreds of thousands of users protested vehemently by forming groups (ironically, on Facebook) with names such as ‘‘Students Against Facebook News Feed” and ‘‘I Hate the New Facebook Format” “(Hoadley, Xu, Lee, & Rosson, 2010). Facebook responded by removing the ‘News Feed’ feature for two days whilst they worked on adding privacy settings. After adding these new settings ‘News Feeds’ were re introduced. Whilst the information shown in the ‘News Feeds’ was certainly readily available to someone with the time and energy to search around for it, this new feature however, brought it all into one easily accessible place, giving users a visibility on others’ profiles that was unwarranted. Facebook had heard the voice of their angry members but the question remained as to whether or not they had truly learned the lesson from this episode.

The main aim of Facebook is to connect people; with its tag line displayed across the log in screen “Facebook helps you connect and share with the people in your life” However this connection can have its pitfalls and serious adverse effects iff the privacy needs and risks of users are not fully identified, addressed and adequately communicated by Facebook management. This can be illustrated by American university student posting an update about his new boyfriend. The student was attending a Baptist affiliated college, where the student charter ‘prohibits homosexual relationships’. The student was subsequently expelled. This created a lot of debate about whether the student should have been expelled even though he knew what the charter had stated, and whether a posting on a social networking site is really private or public.

“Many legal experts say private colleges have the right to exclude students who fail to abide by the college’s moral codes, but others say the Johnson drama underscores the changing landscape of student discipline, in which sites like MySpace and Facebook.com are playing an ever-increasing role.” (Lindenberger, 2006).

To my mind though, this further demonstrates how Facebook and other social networking sites are contributing to the extreme erosion of our personal privacy even when a vulnerable individual is only intending to share a private emotion or feeling with their friends.

When joining a social network site users tend to be truthful with the information added as this information can be viewed by their social networking friends. This degree of personal information sharing though can also lead to users being more susceptible to identity theft. Facebook is no different, with many users adding more than enough information for an identity thief to make easy use of it. “While people’s basic details have been traceable online for some time, what makes Facebook and MySpace so different is the sheer level of information people provide about themselves”. (Wallop, 2007). However with this in mind and even with the increased media coverage about such ‘loop holes’ many members still do not understand or take advantage of the privacy controls that are available. This can be shown by a small sample study taken by Govani and Pahley (2005). The study revealed that 80% of users knew about privacy settings, however only 40% utilized them. This study would suggest that Facebook needs to more actively advise all its members about the site’s privacy settings, and how to use them effectively. When new user joins Facebook, they are not immediately advised to change their privacy settings and they are presented with what Facebook determines as the default settings. These settings give only a basic and very limited protection and expose users to potential identity theft.

In the past few years businesses large and small have seen the potential for social networking in promoting products and data mining. In 2007 Facebook launched a platform where third-party developers could create and launch applications onto Facebook. The launch created a flurry of applications that followed users’ online activities, and also collected information from user profiles to directly market products. Facebook also launched it’s own ‘user activity’ application called ‘Beacon’. This application collected and traced user’s online activities. When ‘Beacon’ was first launched it displayed in the news feed section what activities users were involved in. For example, the application tracked and displayed what purchases users’ had made through online shopping. This caused another user backlash and also gave rise to many Facebook groups crying foul over privacy. “This led to angry protests in November 2007, and the formation of a Facebook group called ‘‘Petition: Facebook, Stop Invading My Privacy!’’ that gained over 70,000 members within its first two weeks.” (Debatin, Lovejoy, Horn, & Hughes, 2009).This forced Facebook to change the privacy settings so that users were allowed to opt-out of this feature. Facebook was still collecting this information using ‘Beacon’. However it did not report it on the members’ profile if they opted-out of the service. In November 2009 Facebook shutdown the controversial ‘Beacon’ application due to a pending class-action lawsuit. Interestingly Facebook management denied any wrongdoing with this application, demonstrating again a remarkable lack of care about the privacy concerns of their members when a revenue-generating opportunity for the company presented itself In March 2010 a San Fransisco judge approved a $US9.5 million settlement in this case. This payout included a $6 million payment into a “digital trust fund”, which will study online privacy. The fact that Facebook will hold one of the three seats on this Trust was was widely objected to by privacy advocates.

“But one privacy advocate said he was exploring whether he could appeal against the decision. ”This sweetheart deal for Facebook is outrageous, and another indication they don’t really want to ensure privacy online,” said Jeffrey Chester, the head of the Centre for Digital Democracy” (Guynn, 2010).

The popularity of Facebook has also led to government agencies using the site to track and spy upon law breakers and criminals. In the United Kingdom the government is looking at a system that would store all information, from emails to websites visited by everyday citizens. This new system was also being looked at for social networking sites, so all user updates would also be stored. “Mr. Coaker acknowledged the controversy surrounding the proposed database but confirmed that the plans “may include requiring the retention of data on Facebook, Bebo, MySpace, and all other similar sites”” (Wardrop, 2009). Such use of Facebook by government agencies can be further highlighted in a case of a University student, who was observed breaking the law by the local police. When the police questioned a witness in the matter he lied about knowing the offender. However the officer used Facebook to locate the witness and then the offender, as they were friends on Facebook. This resulted in a fine for the offender and also for the witness as he was obstructing justice. “The Internet-savvy cop went on Facebook, looked up Gartner’s profile and checked out his Facebook friends. Voila! There was the face of the urinator. Chiles got a $145 ticket for public urination and a $195 ticket went to Gardner for obstructing justice” (Dawson, 2006). This potential use of Facebook by government agencies in tracking both the activities of lawbreakers and good citizens demonstrates how this medium has the probable application to further increase the reach of big brother into our everyday lives, whilst further eroding the rights of net citizens to their online privacy. It is remarkable that whilst Google, with its motto ‘Do no Evil’ made a stand in China over user privacy breaches by supposed government agencies, Facebook has made no such noises or stand on behalf of its members. It is my opinion that heir track record would support a motto such as ‘See no Evil’.

Employers are also finding the use of Facebook a valuable tool to screen potential Employees. Employers are searching using Facebook for applicants’ profiles to try to determine a person’s character through what they can read about them in this online community forum. The employer will particularly look for inappropriate or provocative images or posts, content about their social behaviors, for example their drinking or drug taking habits, poor communication skills and if they have lied about their qualifications.

“As social networking grows increasingly pervasive, more employers are utilizing recent CareerBuilder survey that they use social networking sites to research job candidates, a big jump from 22 percent last year” (Grasz, 2009).

This obviously poses a breach of privacy for Facebook users as most members using social networking sites drop their guard, relax and casually keep in contact with friends and family members. With employers using Facebook in this manner, it is important that users be aware of these other potential uses of Facebook that may show them up in an unintentionally bad light. Again, Facebook management, who are well aware of these risks, has a responsibility to educate and communicate with their members to protect them.

With an advertised “3 billion photos uploaded to the site each month” (Facebook n.d) Facebook users have the ability to tag people in these uploaded images even if the person shown is not a Facebook member. This infringement on non users’ privacy is currently being investigated in Europe. “European regulators are investigating whether the practice of posting photos, videos and other information about people on sites such as Facebook without their consent is a breach of privacy laws.” (www.smh.com.au, 2010) The concern here is that even a non-user and non-subscriber to the online community can have his or her privacy breached without consent or even without their knowledge. This truly demonstrates the extent to which Facebook has undermined everyone’s ability to maintain their privacy.

In Feburary 2009 Facebook changed its terms of service. This change caused a revolt with both its members and the general public. What was different about this change was the additional information that was added by Facebook that allowed it to use any and all member added content, including sublicencing to a third party for the rest of Facebook’s life. This included members who had removed their profiles.
“Now, anything you upload to Facebook can be used by Facebook in any way they deem fit, forever, no matter what you do later.* Want to close your account? Good for you, but Facebook still has the right to do whatever it wants with your old content. They can even sublicense it if they want” (Walters, 2009).

Within days Facebook groups and petitions were created demanding that the old terms of service be reinstated. After seeing the member and community response Facebook backed down and changed the terms of service back to the previous agreement. Yet again Facebook’s blatant attempt to violate user privacy was recognized and reversed in the face of user opposition.

Since its inception, Facebook has dealt with many changes that included changes to its Terms of Service, privacy settings and launching new applications. However with all of these changes and upgrades, Facebook still does not respond adequately or act appropriately to deal with or recognize what could be seen as member privacy issues. This means that users need to be much better educated and much more aware of the risks to their personal privacy and of the ways to protect and guard it within the social networking space. Something innocently put online today could potentially cause them great damage at a future point in time. One intriguing possibility is that as users become more aware of the impending demise of their individual privacy we may reach a potential tipping point where users will accept this fact and move on or will revolt, potentially leading to the demise of Facebook.

This Paper is released under

Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported Licence http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/.

Bibliography

Facebook (n.d.). Retrieved March 24, 2010,

http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics

Baym, N. K., Zhang, Y. B., Kunkel, A. L., & Lin, M. C. (2007). Relational quality and media use in interpersonal relationships. new media & society Volume 9 (5) , 735-752.

Boase, J. (n.d.). Personal networks and the personal communication system. . Information, Communication & Society Voulme 11(4).

Boyd, D. E. (2007). Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1) .

Bugeja, M. J. (2006). Facing the Facebook. The Chronicle of Higher Education Volume 52 Issue 21 , C1.

Christofides, E., Muise, A., & Desmarais, S. (2009). Information Disclosure and Control on Facebook: Are They Two Sides of the Same Coin or Two Different Processes? CyberPsychology & Behavior Volume 12 (3) , 341-345.

Claburn, T. (2007, June 27). Cyberbullying Common, More So At Facebook And MySpace . Retrieved March 28, 2010, from InformationWeek: http://www.informationweek.com/news/internet/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=200001167

Dawson, C. (2006, August 15). The fuzz wants to add you as a friend. Retrieved March 28, 2010, from ZDNet Education: http://education.zdnet.com/?p=411

Debatin, B., Lovejoy, J. P., Horn, A.-K., & Hughes, B. N. (2009). Facebook and Online Privacy: Attitudes, Behaviors, and Unintended Consequences. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication Volume 15 , 83-108.

Donath, J., & Boyd, D. (2004). Public Displays of Connection. BT Technology Journal Volume 22 (4) , 71-82.

Dwyer, C., Hiltz, S. R., & Passerini, K. (2007). Trust and privacy concern within social networking sites:A comparison of Facebook and MySpace. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Americas Conference on Information Systems. Keystone, Colorado August 09 – 12 2007.

Golbeck, J. (2007, November 5). The dynamics of Web-based social networks; Membership, relationships, and change. Retrieved March 24, 2010, from First Monday: http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2023/1889

Govani, T., & Pashley, H. (2005). Student Awareness of the Privacy Implications When Using Facebook. Retrieved March 24, 2010, from http://lorrie.cranor.org/courses/fa05/tubzhlp.pdf

Grasz, J. (2009, August 24). 45% Employers use Facebook-Twitter to screen job candidates. Retrieved March 28, 2010 , from Oregon Business Report: http://oregonbusinessreport.com/2009/08/45-employers-use-facebook-twitter-to-screen-job-candidates/

Guynn, J. (2010, March 19). Facebook settles privacy class action for $10.3m. Retrieved March 28, 2010, from smh.com.au: http://www.smh.com.au/technology/facebook-settles-privacy-class-action-for-103m-20100318-qif7.html

Hoadley, C. M., Xu, H., Lee, J. J., & Rosson, M. B. (2010). Privacy as information access and illusory control: The case of the Facebook News Feed privacy outcry. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 9 , 50-60.

Huberman, B. A., Romero, D. M., & Wu, F. (2009, January 5). Social Networks that Matter: Twitter Under the Microscope. Retrieved March 18, 2010, from First Monday: http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2317/2063

Jones, H., & Soltren, J. H. (2005). Facebook: Threats to Privacy.

Lindenberger, M. (2006). Questions of Conduct . Diverse Issues in Higher Education Volume 23 Number 21 , 36.

Oboler, A. (2008, November 3). The rise and Fall of the Facebook hate group. Retrieved March 28, 2010, from First Monday: http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2254/2048

Perez, J. C. (2007, December 1). Facebook’s Beacon More Intrusive Than Previously Thought. Retrieved March 28, 2010, from PCWorld: http://www.pcworld.com/article/140182/facebooks%20beacon%20more%20intrusive%20than%20previously%20thought.html

Sena-Becker, T. (2007, December 28). Redefining Facebook. Retrieved March 28, 2010, from suite101.com: http://social-networking-tagging.suite101.com/article.cfm/facebook

Tom Tong, S., Van Der Heide, B., Langwell, L., & Walther, J. B. (2008). Too Much of a Good Thing? The Relationship Between Number of Friends and Interpersonal Impressions on Facebook. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication Volume 13 , 531-549.

Wallop, H. (2007, july 03). Fears over Facebook identity fraud. Retrieved March 2010, 24, from Telegraph.co.uk: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1556322/Fears-over-Facebook-identity-fraud.html

Walters, C. (2009, February 15). Facebook’s New Terms Of Service: “We Can Do Anything We Want With Your Content. Forever.”. Retrieved March 28, 2010, from The Consumerist: http://consumerist.com/2009/02/facebooks-new-terms-of-service-we-can-do-anything-we-want-with-your-content-forever.html

Wardrop, M. (2009, March 25). Facebook could be monitored by the government . Retrieved March 28, 2010, from Telegraph.co.uk: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/5046447/Facebook-could-be-monitored-by-the-government.html

Westlake, E. J. (2008). Friend Me if You Facebook. The Drama reveiw Volume 52 (4) , 21-40.

www.smh.com.au. (2010, March 25). Privacy battle looms for Google and Facebook. Retrieved March 28, 2010, from smh.com.au: http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/privacy-battle-looms-for-google-and-facebook-20100325-qyb6.html

Social Networks Facebook, Privacy

Edit in Admin

Comments

Written by RosannaCandler about 2 years ago.

This brilliant paper has reminded me of a conversation I had with a friend a couple of nights ago. She was tentative to join Facebook in the first place as she has always been very conscientious of controlling how people see her. Over the last few weeks- sick of the lack of direction of her own image, name, and personal details (particularly the underhanded way Facebook’s advertising has used her personal information to specifically market to her) – she has taken on an entirely new identity. Changing her name, age, sex, interests and even profile picture (she went from young and blond to an old and moustached Spanish man, go figure ). In her own words, by masking this private information, she is able to “take back control” and still “use Facebook to connect with friends and family without the worry that one day I will regret over-exposing myself online”.

Of course my friend has taken a radical approach, but it does highlight a couple of issues. 1. There are many people who are unhappy with the privacy settings on Facebook, and 2. These people feel they have two options- delete the account or put up with it. The problem is that with Facebook it’s all or nothing. Many people give in and try to overlook their concerns with Facebook’s ownership and control of private information- because the only other option would be giving the site up altogether- and that can be considered online social suicide. The want of Facebook for all its positive attributes (friendships, networking, fun) outweighs the need for personal confidentiality time and time again. I believe this accounts for the reason so many people push privacy settings to the back of their mind and do not challenge ‘the man’ as ruthlessly as they ought to. As reporter Victor Godinez asserts “Almost everyone I work with uses Facebook, and not a single one of them has asked me about privacy concerns. These are all smart people and they don’t hesitate to hit me up with other tech questions. But Facebook privacy settings? No one cares” (2010).

Thanks for the great read, JhiRoberts, well done!

Godinez, V. (2010) Do most people care about Facebook Privacy settings? TechBlog http://techblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2010/05/do-most-people-care-about-face.html Retrieved 16th May 2010
Written by jhiroberts about 2 years ago.

Hi Tom,

Thanks for taking the time to read and comment on my paper.

You bring up a very valid point, maybe it is time that the government steps in and starts to regulate this space.

I find it very interesting that Facebook does seem to be dragging its feet with member privacy as they are clearly making money off not having all members being fully aware of the privacy settings that are available to them.

Cheers

Jhi
Written by TomEvans about 2 years ago.

Hi Jhiroberts

The privacy issue on Facebook is a serious one made more so because of many of the users are unaware of the risks they face using such a public medium. It is interesting that in an age that saw the introduction of strict privacy laws that govern what information can be collected about people, how it is used, stored and released, that Social Network Sites should be allowed to operate without any consideration about the privacy of its users. Presumably because people are posting information about themselves on a site that can be publicly accessed, they are considered to have given their consent but what about when people are not fully aware of the implications of using a SNS even when they have read the terms and conditions?

It is concerning that Facebook sets the sites default setting to public. Perhaps it is time to consider the introduction of some form of regulation that requires Facebook to set the default to the maximum allowable privacy and allow people to change it if they choose. This is not such a radical proposition. Even email is governed by law. Laws were introduced into Australia in 2001 making it illegal to forward an email without the author’s permission at the risk of a $60,000 fine or five years prison.

The new terms of service that Facebook introduced in 2009 indicating that information could be shared with third parties was telling. It is highly unlikely that this information would be made available for nothing. Facebook is likely to be making a lot of money from selling personal information to marketeers and so not only has no motivation for protecting the privacy of individuals but has money to make from exploiting it further. The social cost of this could be enormous. Perhaps it is time for some control.

Greene TC ‘Australia Outlaws email forwarding’ Music and Media, 5 March 2001
Retrieved 12 May 2010 from http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/03/05/australia_outlaws_email_forwarding/
Written by jhiroberts about 2 years ago.

Hi Scott,

Thanks for taking the time to read my paper and comment.

Thanks for the link, a very interesting find.

It always amazes me, how many people have no idea about internet privacy, its a very scary thought, as we become more and more reliant on the internet, i think its important that something is done to make the greater internet community aware. I think that education is the key.

Cheers

Jhi
Written by Angela F about 2 years ago.

Hi Jhi,

I agree. I have heard of some initiatives in schools to teach kids about the Do’s and Don’ts for when they are online. Like you I think this will be important because I’m sure many parents aren’t aware of the pitfalls, especially when it comes to cyberbullying. For me, I know a few of my friends in their late-twenties who aren’t on Facebook, are already feeling ‘behind the times’ and are questioning what good they’ll be at protecting their children from possible online threats.

On another note, I came across this: “10 Privacy Settings Every Facebook User Should Know” (from http://www.allfacebook.com/2009/02/facebook-privacy/ ). It was posted in 2009, so is perhaps a little out of date with any recent Facebook updates; however it was very informative, and something as simple as this is inline with your paper’s suggestion.

All the best with assignment 2 & 3.

Ange
Written by Scott Mackenzie about 2 years ago.

Hi Jhi,

Thanks for the interesting read. The issue of privacy on the world wide web is something which is important to all of us. But I wonder how many people take it seriously when considering the fact that most information is available in some form or another in perpituity once it has been placed on the internet.

Your paper reminded me of the Wayback Machine (which can be found at http://www.archive.org/web/web.php ) and the fact that they cache web pages at different times throughout the life of a website. A quick search of facebook shows that there are photo’s available from people who had joined ‘networks’ in 2008 and these photo’s are still available through the Wayback Machine (for example http://web.archive.org/web/20080214173720/www.facebook.com/people/Mike_Long/761035456 ).

I have heard examples from others of information being posted in usenet groups which still appear when searches are performed on these people using internet search engines.
I agree with you that information does need to be given to users of SNS’s like Facebook in regards to how best to set their privacy but also wonder about the lack of information available to the general public regarding the relative permanency of any information posted on the internet.

I’ll reserve judgement on issues of people being caught out deceiving or misleading others in real life situations only to be caught out with the truth through social networking sites.

Very well written paper, well argued and constructed. Thanks for all the effort you put in.
Scott
Written by jhiroberts about 2 years ago.

Hi Liz,

Thanks for your comments.

I guess with all of the bad press that Facebook, is now getting in regards to member privacy. It could go either way I think.

I think the most important thing is that everyone who uses Facebook is aware of the risks and what they can do to negate them whist using the site. If they are not comfortable they should not use the site.

I still do think that Facebook needs to be careful and listen to their members, after all without any members there would be no Facebook.

Cheers

Jhi
Written by lpower about 2 years ago.

Hi Jhi

With over “3 billion photos uploaded on the site each month” I don’t think the demise of Facebook is going to happen any time soon.

Thanks for an interesting paper. I am a user of Facebook however I only recently joined and wasn’t aware of the history of securities issues Facebook has encountered in the past.

It is similar to “buyer beware”. If users are aware of the risks Facebook poses, then it is up to them whether it is worth the risk. However, as you mention, the security concerns are not broadcast as openly as you would think. There is reference to security setting in the “Help” section on Facebook but I don’t think it would be the most visited page on the site.

Liz
Written by jhiroberts about 2 years ago.

Hi Mandy,

Thanks for taking the time to read my paper.

Thanks for your comments,

I don’t think Facebook are fully responsible for membership privacy, however they do have an obligation to protect it. I think the biggest issue is as you said is member education. Users of social networking need to be aware of how their information might be used or shared.

The issue with the News-Feed application is that sure people updated their profile with this information, they did not agree to it being broadcast to all of their ‘Online Friends’. The main issue was that when the application was first launched members could not opt-out of the updates, which meant that members did not have to go into each individual profile to see what their friends had been up-to, all they needed to do was log on. This has now been changed, but my point was that Facebook, did not understand or did not see the potential backlash that could occur with launching this application.

Cheers

Jhi
Written by Mandy Burke about 2 years ago.

Hi JH,

I don’t agree that Facebook should be fully responsible for user’s privacy. I believe that a person is responsible for the personal information that they put on their site. What did these people do about their privacy before Facebook? They learnt through their mistakes and other people’s mistakes what could and couldn’t be done with their personal information. Just like how people are learning about the privacy issues on Facebook.

However, I do agree that Facebook should be more proactive in educating its users regarding privacy concerns on their site. I think you are right when joining Facebook, I think the new user should be presented with their Facebook settings before going on to add friends. I also think your idea of a privacy tutorial is something that would benefit all users. But in the end this is up to the person publishing their information on Facebook to be proactive about. Facebook can not be held responsible for information that people willingly put on their site.

I understand your points about the newsfeed displaying information that people did not have to seek out. But why would you put something on your social networking page if you did not want other people to see it? Isn’t that the kind of information that you would keep private?

Great paper!

Thanks
Mandy
Written by jhiroberts about 2 years ago.

Hi Renee,

Thanks for the link.

Its interesting only 2 weeks ago, a friend of mine had the same issue with his FB account. He was just lucky that one of his friends had read about the issue reported in that article and rang him straight away.

FB did lock his account, after many reports. He now has his account back.

He did report that FB where not that helpful in fixing the issue.

Cheers

Jhi
Written by jhiroberts about 2 years ago.

HI Ange,

Thanks for your comments.

It is a scary thought that the view of privacy by Facebook, will be viewed as the norm for the next generation.

I think that one societies biggest concerns should be educate the next generation on the impacts of social networking, i know when I was a kid I never had any indication of what the impacts were with me using the internet and giving out my personal information.

Cheers

Jhi
Written by jhiroberts about 2 years ago.

Hi Michael.

Thanks for your comments.

It was one of my aims to identify possible solutions to the never ending privacy woes of Facebook.

I do think that Facebook does have a place in our society, however the owners of Facebook need to really take a look at privacy and actually do something about it, instead of adding bandaid fixes when members complain.

Cheers

Jhi
Written by jhiroberts about 2 years ago.

Hi Janette,

It is a very interesting thought that Facebook seems to be putting money ahead of its users. I am not sure how long this can last.

I wonder what the implications will be for the next generation of people in the public eye, having their social networking actions of the past being dragged up to haunt them.

I agree, very scary stuff
Written by reneeh about 2 years ago.

Social networking sites have been embraced and used by people worldwide, but how many really know what they have signed up for, security or their rights?Identity theft is difficult when you are able to report it to the proper Authorities, unfortunelty if identity theft happens on facebook and you are not able to log on and reclaim your identity, trying to report it to facebook is difficult as they do not man telephones and response time of replying on email is also near impossible.THe link below takes you to an article where identity theft on facebook actually occured and the dismal response from Facebook. Lets hope that this doesn’t happen to someone we know.
http://redtape.msnbc.com/2009/01/post-1.html

Renee
Written by Angela F about 2 years ago.

Hi Jhi,

Excellent paper: well argued and a very good read!

I can’t remember where I read this but because Facebook is devised by programmers who think in ‘ones and zeros’, they see privacy as either on or off, they leave no room for the nuances that are present in human relationships. SNSs are systems built for sharing information: the assumption is that you want to share… Privacy settings are the antithesis to this: “anything that makes it harder for me to share is a bug, not a feature” (Grimmelmann, 2009, p. 1187). Furthermore, their revenue model is based on you sharing your content. It’s no wonder they are reluctant to consider users’ privacy.

On your point that Facebook should be proactive in educating its users on privacy, I agree that this would be helpful. However I don’t believe that a demo on using privacy setting will be enough. Studies have found that users are often apathetic in their approach to privacy with users “disabl[ing] any feature that protects their privacy too much” (Grimmelmann, 2009, p. 1187) because they see it as getting in their way of sharing information. Hopefully those that watch your proposed demo will be vigilant and proactive enough to encourage their friends to take their privacy seriously. The power lies with the people not only in the system; it’s up to us to protect our privacy and that of others’.

For me the scariest thing is that over time, if nothing is done, Facebook will in turn shape our cultural/social understanding of privacy. Our social relationships and definitions of privacy will be altered forevermore.

An excellent paper, thank you so much.

Ange

———————————
Grimmelmann, J. (2009). saving Facebook. Iowa Law Review, 94, 1137-1206.
Written by Michael N about 2 years ago.

One particular interesting facet of your paper is your reporting of the activism that lead to Facebook reconsidering its privacy violations. I think that whilst your paper argues successfully about how individual privacy has demised, you also put a good amount of information about how to possibly solve the issue, through activism. I don’t know if that was your intention but it made the paper good to read.
Written by janette about 2 years ago.

Privacy and security of SNS is certainly an issue. It is indeed a worry to know that anyone can upload images and information about another person without their consent or knowledge. If that information and those images are derogatory or embarrassing or untrue, this has the potential to diversely affect that person and their relationships, their career, their future.

As your paper suggests, security appears to be in name only as a means of placating users, and nothing we put online is private and our information will remain in cyberspace forever and if big business can make a buck from the information, they will use it, sell it, trade it, however, to make that buck.

Add information to a SNS and you can assume that it will be stored somewhere and dragged out at a later date if someone thinks it is necessary – you are tracked forever.

Scary stuff …

Comment Pages:

Online Conference on Networks and Communities

Facebook and the demise of individual privacy – a flawed assumption or serial disregard?

Comments

Categories

Tags

Latest comments

Meta