The Emerging Privacy Implications of Social Media

This is the full un-edited text of my News-Record Column:

Earlier we looked at the strange, and fairly recent, shift in human communication where information could be reproduced, repeated and widely broadcasted. This week, we’re going to look at online privacy.
    30% of employers admit to using Facebook alone to vet potential employees. If that weren’t reason enough to think about online privacy, the majority of young people find it socially acceptable to look through someone’s Facebook profile and photos to learn about them before going on a first date and many parents now use online social networking tools as well. I use Facebook as a prime example because it has 350 million active users, half of whom log in at least once per day.
    On a website like Facebook, where 2.5 billion photos (and climbing) are uploaded to the site every single month -  30 billion photos every year - how much privacy is left?
    Not much, at least according to President Obama. When speaking to a group of high school students last year, he said in response to a question from one student about how to become president one day: “I want everybody here to be careful about what you post on Facebook, because in the YouTube age whatever you do, it will be pulled up again later somewhere in your life,” Obama said. “That’s number one.”
    There is something epic happening in our culture when the President of the United States tells young people that the number one thing to remember if you are interested in becoming president is to be careful about content posted online.
    Even the way in which people converse on Facebook has seemed to change over the years. Conversations that used to happen either over phone calls, emails, text messages or private messages on Facebook now seem to happen right out in the open for, at the minimum, hundreds of people to see and save for eternity if they so desire.
    The way sites like Facebook or Myspace are designed encourage this, as the default means of communication is posting content to the semi-public wall of another user’s page. At what point did personal communication become a public spectacle?
    Most Facebook users do not have strict privacy settings and most Twitter users, for example, do not have protected (or private) updates. The mere action of communicating with one another has become a public event for people to comment on, reproduce, or save.
    On one hand, this new way of communicating is extremely interactive, to the extent that one can see on who is communicating with whom, can comment on any individual communication or even send it to another friend. This virtual community has an amazing upside - we have literally created new communities where there were non before. You can see what your friend thought of photos uploaded by another friend on the other side of the world.
    And not only do people publicly converse about normal things that used to be private by default, but people also tend to share more personal information about themselves online. Again, a double-edged sword - as this creates incredibly engaged, emotional and personal communities online, but also leads many people to put on display things they perhaps ought not, and in the future may wish they hadn’t.
    That is one of the downsides, related to what Obama said about online content being saved for eternity. And there is enormous social pressure put on people when their lives are literally on display for anyone to see. Relationships between people often start or end based on what happens on Facebook. Media ecologist Marshall McLuhan may have said it best, “We shape our tools and thereafter our tools shape us.”
    Our ability to recognize this problem, however, is important and I think we can temper the negative side effects and gain more of the positive. As per usual, I don’t think I can fully answer any of these questions or issues here, but it is very important to bring them up and ensure that the implications of some of these new and emerging technologies are taken seriously and discussed.
    In the meantime, check out my blog for the 5 Facebook privacy settings you need to ensure you have control over your privacy online.

Quick Guide To Facebook Privacy

Facebook has 350 million users, half of whom log in at least once per day. Do you know want all those people to see all of your personal information? Here is a quick guide to understanding privacy on Facebook and the five privacy settings you should know about:

1) Friend Lists

These can be a little time consuming to set up a first time around, but they do help you have some control over who views certain content on your profile and make things easier potentially in the long run. Navigate to your friends page and you'll see an option to create friend lists. Maybe setting up Family, Friends and Co-Workers is a way to go, but whatever you do, friend lists are a very helpful tool that Facebook offers its users.

2) Tagged Photos and Videos

Go to your privacy settings page (Settings and then Privacy Settings) and you can enter a custom privacy settings for photos and videos that you have been tagged in, for example allowing only you to be able to see them.

3) Your Photo Albums

You can set privacy settings on each individual photo album that you upload to Facebook. With about 30 billion photos being uploaded to Facebook each year, odds are there are some photos that may be a bit more personal than others, and Facebook allows you to set the level for each album if you so choose.

4) Your status updates and wall posts

Recently, Facebook changed the way that you can control privacy when updating your status or posting to your wall. Now, each time you post an update you can select who (down to literally selecting friend by friend if you want to) will see your updates. The privacy button for the updates is right next to the "update" button when you publish a status update.

5) Your profile information

This is a basic one, but important. Go back to the privacy settings page and you can check off which information on your profile you would like to be visible to whom. If you are using Facebook for networking, you may want to keep work information viewable, while things like relationship status private.

None of these settings are any fool-proof way to ensure that you don't get embarrassed online or have personal information, private photos or videos or inappropriate status updates seen by the world. The best tip that anyone can give: If you don't want stupid photos of you showing up on Facebook, don't act stupid. If you must, then at least don't take pictures of it.

Studies routinely show that people are willing to share far more information online than they would be in a direct physical setting, so keep in mind how you would have felt about the information you are about to post to Facebook being on public display before this thing called Facebook came along - a time when communication between people was generally private by default.

Online Sarcasm

Have you ever been a situation where you made a sarcastic statement online, only to be rebuffed by an angry or confused colleague or friend?

Well, one company thinks they have the solution: SarcMark. A new character (to the right of the "SarcMark") to be used in online communication, the SarcMark is supposed to be able to designate that the sentence to which the punctuation is attached was sarcasm.

This is a brilliant idea, as no doubt many people have trouble communicating sarcasm online, an for the visually impaired, having a standard punctuation mark to denote sarcasm will really help with reading online.

Unfortunately, SarcMark costs $1.99 to download and use. Do they expect that the hundreds of millions of people using computers will each pay $2 to download this nifty punctuation mark? And thusly make hundreds of millions from this one product. Not likely. So much so, that the likely winner in creating a new punctuation mark for sarcasm will be a company who releases the character into the public domain so that it may be used widely. Hint: any graphic designers out there.

But then again, I'm just fine with writing sarcastically ambiguous statements online that confuse people. [SarcMark]


http://mashable.com/2010/01/15/sarcmark/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/6995354/Sarcasm-punctuation-mark-aims-to-put-an-end-to-email-confusion.html

The Costs of Waiting

When thinking about investing money in infrastructure (whether physical, political, educational, etc) like healthcare it's important to frame the context in which this debate is being held. Let's be honest: our current system will change, probably quite often until some sort of equilibrium is reached, and then it will just change again. The idea of changing something we have now should never, ever be controversial.

Unfortunately, a counterproductive practice people tend to exhibit, that has been more recently explored in the field of behavioral economics, is peoples' misperception that waiting costs nothing.

I find the phrase 'status quo' interesting, because, in reality, it doesn't exist. Nothing is ever not changing in some way. The changes may be small or may seem unrelated, but they are not. And in terms of healthcare, the costs are enormous as emergency rooms become more overcrowded and more American families are faced with the horror of not having the ability to ensure the safety and health of their loved ones.

I am not even advocating a particular solution, and in fact, none of the solutions we have are perfect, and they never will be, but as science moves forward exploring and learning, so must we in public policy. And part of that is realizing that waiting has costs just as much as bad policy does, maybe even more. Not everyone will get exactly what they want out of this debate, but let's think about how we can best move this policy forward and help cover more of those 47 million uninsured Americans.

An Open Letter to Research in Motion

Many people rely on their BlackBerry device to provide data and email services on the go. However, if email services fail, critical information or emails may not get through to the user. And unfortunately for the user, it is not always possible to tell when data services have gone down.

RIM should create an automatic process by which an SMS is sent to all subscribed data users (because when data/email fails SMS almost always still works) letting the user know that the email/data service is down, and to check the website, etc for updates.

This way if a user is expecting an important email, for example, they can make arrangements to get information from another source, rather than be in the dark as to why an email hasn't arrived. If you are on business somewhere and rely on your BlackBerry for email but email service is down, simply having that information can help avoid missing any critical information.

Sign the petition via Twitter here: http://act.ly/1k0

Good News for Cell Phone Users

A 30-year, nearly 16 million person study concluded on Thursday that there was no link between cell phone usage and the potential development of brain tumors.

As reported in the The Age "We did not detect any clear change in the long-term time trends in the incidence of brain tumours from 1998 to 2003 in any subgroup," Isabelle Deltour of the Danish Cancer Society and colleagues wrote."

Read the full story here. 

Intellectual Honesty and Modern Communication

Throughout the course of history, there have been many times when letters have been discovered posthumous which were written by a jurist, scholar or public official which contained controversial personal testimony or ideas far too radical for their time. That was a time when the original document or letter could not be reproduced in a way that could guarantee the authenticity of the reproduction. Meaning, people could write letters to colleagues, friends or even enemies across the country and the chance that the writing would ever leave the hands of the original recipient was very low. And furthermore, the chance that anything personally damning could be spread throughout the media was even lower. No longer is this the case.

I cannot fully express in this post how much that has changed. It has been a seemingly subtle and largely unseen transformation but it is inexorably fundamental to the core principals of how we communicate. No longer is communication, in any form, guaranteed confidential. Yes, some people have confidentiality notices on emails, or expect that “private messages” on websites are indeed private, but they are not. And not just because these messages often get stored indefinitely by a third party, but because in many cases these communications are stored, indexed, searched and cached - Indefinitely. Twitter posts, Facebook posts, blog entries, email list messages (yes, many email listservs are indexed and cached in Google) are often if not always available in search results. And forget all of the emails, IMs, text messages and private/direct messages that are private yes, but stored without any policy as to their lifespan on third party servers.

In fact, search engines like Google cache (save old revisions) almost all of the content it indexes for its search, and there are many companies, organizations and movements gaining traction to track and save as many revisions and history of all online content for historical purposes.

This means that everyone in our culture is held to an astonishingly high degree of accountability as to everything they do or say. 150 years ago, or even less, you could not play a video, a sound recording, or show a snapshot of a website against one from another time. Now, socially critical TV shows, radio shows and websites routinely show a sound bite from two years ago in one context next to a sound bite of another context, seemingly showing the person ‘flip-flopping.” And what is the implication of this?

Well on the positive side, it creates accountability for anyone, especially public officials. It’s easy at this point in time, to ‘check the record’ to see what was really said or done in any past situation. And in reference to tracking online content, it provides a fascinating look into the progression of information and human culture. Both excellent benefits, however, there is a downside.

I’ll call this downside it intellectual superficiality. This is the state of affairs, which we are currently in, which fundamentally started with the photograph or photocopier, where one must start to grapple with the fact that anything written, said or done, may at some point be exactly reproduced, and could come back to them in such a way that could easily be spread quickly via online audiences. How thoughtful and upfront do we expect each other to really be?

Is it possible that these advanced forms of communication are actually creating a culture that doesn’t value thoughtfulness, honesty or disclosure in all aspects of life, but perhaps favors plausible deniability and vagueness instead? And what does that mean for the future of technology and communication and the concept of what is private versus what is public?