Jump to content

Privacy concerns with social networking services: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 18: Line 18:
===Stalking===
===Stalking===


The potential ability for [[stalking]] users on social networking sites has been noted. A study of Facebook profiles from students at Carnegie Mellon University revealed that about 800 profiles included current resident and at least two classes being studied, theoretically allowing viewers to know the precise location of individuals at specific times.<ref name=GrossP8>Gross, R. and Acquisti, A. 2005. Information Revelation and Privacy in Online Social Networking Sites (The Facebook Case).[online]. p. 8. Available at: http://www.heinz.cmu.edu/~acquisti/papers/privacy-facebook-gross-acquisti.pdf [Accessed 24 April 2011].</ref> [[AOL]] attracted controversy over its instant messenger AIM which permits users to add ‘buddies’ without their knowing, and therefore track when a user is online.<ref name=GrossP8 /> Concerns have also been raised over the relative ease for people to read private messages or e-mails on social networking sites.<ref>Malone, S. 2005. CLARIFICATION: AOL Instant messenger users ‘waive right to privacy’. [online]. Available at: http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/70262/clarification-aol-instant-messenger-users-waive-right-to-privacy [Accessed 24 April 2011]</ref>
The potential ability for [[stalking]] users on social networking sites has been noted. A study of Facebook profiles from students at Carnegie Mellon University revealed that about 800 profiles included current resident and at least two classes being studied, theoretically allowing viewers to know the precise location of individuals at specific times.<ref name=GrossP8>Gross, R. and Acquisti, A. 2005. Information Revelation and Privacy in Online Social Networking Sites (The Facebook Case).[online]. p. 8. Available at: http://www.heinz.cmu.edu/~acquisti/papers/privacy-facebook-gross-acquisti.pdf [Accessed 24 April 2011].</ref> [[AOL]] attracted controversy over its instant messenger AIM which permits users to add ‘buddies’ without their knowing, and therefore track when a user is online.<ref name=GrossP8 /> Concerns have also been raised over the relative ease for people to read private messages or e-mails on social networking sites.<ref>Malone, S. 2005. CLARIFICATION: AOL Instant messenger users ‘waive right to privacy’. [online]. Available at: http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/70262/clarification-aol-instant-messenger-users-waive-right-to-privacy [Accessed 24 April 2011]</ref> Maria is a stalker


===Unintentional fame===
===Unintentional fame===

Revision as of 19:11, 27 November 2012

Social networking sites greatly vary in the levels of privacy offered or even required. With some sites, such as Facebook, the use of real names and uploading of personal information is encouraged (onto a page known as a ‘Profile‘). This may include birthday, address, telephone number, and more intimate details such as interests, hobbies, favorite books/films/music, relationship status andhey i just met you and tis is crazyFriendster, a weak pseduonymity is encouraged. There are others, such as Match.com, where the use is designed to encourage anonymity, and thus linking users to individuals can be difficult. However, even with sites that discourage the use of real names, individuals can be identified, such as through face re-identification. It has been estimated by studying two major social networking sites that a 15% overlap of the same or similar photographs makes it possible to identify profiles with similar pictures on other sites.[1] With sites that do encourage information disclosure, it has been noticed that the majority users seem happy to disclose as much information as possible and to as many people as possible.[1] In 2005, a study was performed in which data was analysed from 5, 540 Facebook profiles from students at Carnegie Mellon University. It was revealed that 89% gave a name that was likely to be genuine, and 61% gave a photograph suitable for direct identification.[1] The visibility of this personal information is highly variable. The vast majority of users also had not altered their privacy setting, enabling a large number of presumably unknown users to have access to their displayed personal information (the default setting originally allowed friends, friends of friends, and non friends of the same network to have full view of a user‘s profile). It is possible for a user to block other users from seeing their presence on Facebook, but this must be done on an individual by individual basis, and would therefore appear not to be commonly used for a wide number of people. All of this has led to many concerns that users are displaying far too much information on social networking sites which may have serious implications on their privacy. Facebook has especially been criticised due to the perceived laxity regarding privacy in the default setting for users, which evidence suggests most do not alter.[2] The reason social network security and privacy lapses exist results simply from the astronomical amounts of information the sites process each and every day that end up making it that much easier to exploit a single flaw in the system. Features that invite user participation—messages, invitations, photos, open platform applications, etc. -- are often the avenues used to gain access to private information, especially in the case of Facebook. Adrienne Felt, a Ph.D. candidate at Berkeley, made small headlines last year when she exposed a potentially devastating hole in the framework of Facebook's third-party application programming interface (API) which allows for easy theft of private information. Felt and her co-researchers found that third-party platform applications for Facebook gave developers access to far more information (addresses, pictures, interests, etc.) than needed to run the app. This potential privacy breach is actually built into the systematic framework of Facebook, and unfortunately the flaw renders the system almost indefensible. "The question for social networks is resolving the difference between mistakes in implementation and what the design of the application platform is intended to allow," David Evans, Assistant Professor of Computer Science at the University of Virginia, says. There's also the question of whom we should hold responsible for the over-sharing of user data? That resolution isn't likely to come anytime soon, says Evans, because a new, more regulated API would require Facebook "to break a lot of applications, and a lot of companies are trying to make money off applications now." Felt agrees, noting that now "there are marketing businesses built on top of the idea that third parties can get access to data on Facebook."

Storage of data

Most social networking sites require users to agree to Code of Use policy before they may use their services. Controversially, these Code of Use declarations that users must agree to often contain clauses permitting social networking operators to store data on users, or even share it with third parties. Facebook has attracted attention over its policies regarding data storage, such as making it difficult to delete an account, holding onto data after an account is de-activated and being caught sharing personal data with third parties.[3]

Potential dangers

Identity theft

Due to the high volume of personal information often displayed on social networking sites, it is possible to make further estimations about a user, such as the person’s social security number, which can then be used as part of identity theft.[4] In response, various groups have advised that users either do not display their birthday, or hide it from Facebook ‘friends’ they do not personally know.[5] Cases have also appeared of users having photographs stolen from social networking sites in order to assist in identity theft.[6] There is little evidence that many most users of social networking sites are talking full measures to protect themselves from identity theft. As Twitter becomes another popular social networking site where users and celebrities are able to share their thoughts through "status updates," there are also downsides on using the social networking website as you have to chance to get your profile hacked. Numerous of celebrities have claimed to have their Twitter accounts hacked.[7]

Sexual predators

Most major social networking sites are committed to ensuring that use of their services are as safe as possible. However, due to the high content of personal information placed on social networking sites, as well as the ability to hide behind a pseudo-identity, such sites have become increasingly popular for sexual predators. In 2009, it was revealed that MySpace had evicted 90, 000 registered sex offenders from its site in the previous two years.[8] However, it was also suggested that the majority of these simply transferred to using the services provided by Facebook. In response to concerns, Facebook Help Center has set up a system whereby users may notify on suspected sex offers which, if proven to be accurate, will result in their account be terminated.[9] While the numbers may remain small, it has been noted that the number of sexual predators caught using social networking sites has been increasing, and has now reached an almost weekly basis.[10] A number of highly publicised cases have demonstrated the threat posed for users, such as Peter Chapman who, under a false name, added over 3, 000 friends and went on to rape and murder a 17 year old girl in 2009.[11] A 12 year old, Evergreen girl was safely found by the FBI with the help of Facebook; as her mother had learn of her daughter's conversion with a man she had met on the popular social networking website.[12]

Stalking

The potential ability for stalking users on social networking sites has been noted. A study of Facebook profiles from students at Carnegie Mellon University revealed that about 800 profiles included current resident and at least two classes being studied, theoretically allowing viewers to know the precise location of individuals at specific times.[4] AOL attracted controversy over its instant messenger AIM which permits users to add ‘buddies’ without their knowing, and therefore track when a user is online.[4] Concerns have also been raised over the relative ease for people to read private messages or e-mails on social networking sites.[13] Maria is a stalker

Unintentional fame

Privacy concerns have also been raised over a number of high profile incidents which can be considered embarrassing for users. Various internet memes have been started on social networking sites, or been used as a means towards their spread across the internet. In 2002, a Canadian teenager became known as the Star Wars Kid after a video of him using a golf club as a light sabre was posted on the internet without his consent. The video quickly became a hit, much to the embarrassment of the teenager who claims to have suffered as a result.[14] Along with other incidents of videos being posted on social networking sites, this highlights the ability for personal information to be rapidly transferred between users.

Employment

Issues relating to privacy and employment are becoming a concern with regards to social networking sites. As of 2008, it has been estimated by CareerBuilder.com that one in five employers search social networking sites in order to screen potential candidates (increasing from only 11% in 2006).[15] For the majority of employers, such action is to acquire negative information about candidates. For example, 41% of managers considered information relating to candidates’ alcohol and drug use to be a top concern.[15] Other concerns investigated via social networking sites included poor communication skills, inappropriate photographs, inaccurate qualifications and bad-mouthing former employers/colleagues.[15] However, 24% manager claimed that information found on a social networking site persuaded them to hire a candidate, suggesting that a user image can be used in a positive way.

While there is little doubt that employers will continue to use social networking sites as a means of monitoring staff and screening potential candidates, it has been noted that such actions may be illegal under in jurisdictions. According to Workforce.com, employers who use Facebook or Myspace could potentially face legal action:

If a potential employer uses a social networking site to check out a job candidate and then rejects that person based on what they see, he or she could be charged with discrimination.[16] On August 1, 2012, Illinois joined the state of Maryland (law passed in March 2012) in prohibiting employer access to social media web sites of their employees and prospective employees. A number of other states that are also considering such prohibitory legislation (California, Delaware, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, South Carolina and Washington), as is the United States Congress. In April 2012, the Social Networking Online Protection Act (2012 H.R. 5050) was introduced in the United States House of Representatives, and the Password Protection Act of 2012 (2012 S. 3074) was introduced in the United States Senate in May 2012, which prohibit employers from requiring access to their employees’ social media web sites.[17]

Monitoring of social networking sites is not limited to potential workers. Issues relating to privacy are becoming an increasing concern for those currently in employment. A number of high profile cases have appeared in which individuals have been sacked for posting comments on social networking which have been considered disparaging to their current employers or fellow workers. In 2009, sixteen year old Kimberley Swann was sacked from her position at Ivell Marketing and Logistics Limited after describing her job as ‘boring’.[18] In 2008, Virgin Atlantic sacked thirteen cabin crew staff, after it emerged they used had criticised the company’s safety standards and called passengers ‘chavs’ on Facebook.[19] While employers may have found such usages of social networking sites convenient, complaints have been put forward by civil liberties groups and trade unions on the invasive approach adopted by many employers. In response to the Kimberley Swann case, Brendan Barber, of the TUC union stated that:

Most employers wouldn't dream of following their staff down the pub to see if they were sounding off about work to their friends," he said. "Just because snooping on personal conversations is possible these days, it doesn't make it healthy."

Monitoring of staff’s social networking activities is also becoming an increasingly common method of ensuring that employees are not browsing websites during work hours. It was estimated in 2010 that an average of two million employees spent over an hour a day on social networking sites, costing potentially £14 billion.[20]

Privacy Concerns

Twitter has admitted that they have scanned and imported their user's phone contacts onto the website database in order to learn more about their users. Most users were unaware that Twitter did implement this as a way for new users to build their network through finding or inviting their own friends. Twitter has stated that from now on they will state their privacy guidelines more clearly.[21] More than 1,000 companies are waiting in line to get access to millions of tweets from users that are using the popular social networking website. Companies believe that by using data mining technologies they would be able to gather important information that can be used for marketing and advertising.[22]

Institutional concerns

A number of institutions have expressed concern over the lack of privacy granted to users on social networking sites. These include schools, libraries, and Government agencies.

Libraries

Libraries in the particular, being concerned with the privacy of individuals, have debated on allowing library patrons to access social networking sites on public library computers. While only 19% of librarians reportedly express real concern over social networking privacy, they have been particularly vocal in voicing their concerns.[23] Some have argued that the lack of privacy found on social networking sites is contrary to the ethics supported by Library organisations, and the latter should thus be extremely apprehensive about dealing with the former.[23] Supporters of this view present their argument from the code of ethics held by both the American Library Association and the UK based Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals, which affirms a commitment to upholding privacy as a fundamental right.[23] In 2008, a study was performed in fourteen public libraries in the UK which found that 50% blocked access to social networking sites.[24] Many school libraries have also blocked Facebook out of fear that children may be disclosing too much information on Facebook. However, as of 2011, Facebook has taken efforts to combat this concern by deleting profiles of users under the age of thirteen.[25]

Response to criticism

Many social networking organisations have responded to criticism and concerns over privacy. It is claimed that changes to default settings, the storage of data and sharing with third parties have all been updated and corrected in the light of criticism, and/or legal challenges.[26] However, many critics remain unsatisfied, noting that fundamental changes to privacy settings in many social networking sites remain minor, and argue that social networking companies prefer to criticise users rather than adapt their policies.[27]

See also

References

  1. ^ a b c Gross, R. and Acquisti, A. 2005. Information Revelation and Privacy in Online Social Networking Sites (The Facebook Case).[online]. p. 2. Available at: http://www.heinz.cmu.edu/~acquisti/papers/privacy-facebook-gross-acquisti.pdf [Accessed 24 April 2011].
  2. ^ Kelly, S. Identity ‘at risk’ on Facebook. BBC News. [online]. Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/click_online/7375772.stm [Accessed 25 April 2011].
  3. ^ Bangeman, E. 2010. Report: Facebook caught sharing secret data with advisers. [online]. Available at: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/05/latest-facebook-blunder-secret-data-sharing-with-advertisers.ars [Accessed 25 April 2011]
  4. ^ a b c Gross, R. and Acquisti, A. 2005. Information Revelation and Privacy in Online Social Networking Sites (The Facebook Case).[online]. p. 8. Available at: http://www.heinz.cmu.edu/~acquisti/papers/privacy-facebook-gross-acquisti.pdf [Accessed 24 April 2011].
  5. ^ myID.com. 2011. Social Network Profiles Help Identity Thieves Guess Your Social Security Number. [online]. Available at: http://www.myid.com/social-network-profiles-help-thieves-guess-your-social-security-number. [Accessed 25 April 2011]
  6. ^ MSNBC. 2011. Kids’ pictures on Facebook exposes them to identity theft. [online]. Available at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42593880/ns/local_news-bakersfield_ca/ [Accessed 25 April 2011]
  7. ^ myers, alexandra. "After a Twitter hack, 'biebermyballs' becomes a popular hashtag". daily caller. Retrieved 30 March 2012.
  8. ^ Schonfield. E. 2009. Thousands Of Myspace Sex Offender Refugees Found On Facebook. [online]. Available at: http://techcrunch.com/2009/02/03/thousands-of-myspace-sex-offender-refugees-found-on-facebook/ [Accessed: 24 April 2011]
  9. ^ Facebook Help Center. 2011. How can I report a convicted sex offender? [online]. Available at: www.facebook.com/help/?faq=15160 [Accessed 24 April 2011]
  10. ^ Randall, D. and Richards, V. Facebook can ruin your life. And so can Myspace, Bebo…. The Independent [online]. Available at: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/facebook-can-ruin-your-life-and-so-can-myspace-bebo-780521.html. [Accessed 24 April 2011]
  11. ^ Smith, C. 2010. Serial Sex Offender Admits Using Facebook To Rape and Murder Teen. The Huffington Post. [online]. Available at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/08/peter-chapman-admits-usin_n_489674.html [Accessed 24 April 2011]
  12. ^ davis, jesse. "Missing Evergreen girl found safe near Las Vegas". Retrieved 30 March 2012.
  13. ^ Malone, S. 2005. CLARIFICATION: AOL Instant messenger users ‘waive right to privacy’. [online]. Available at: http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/70262/clarification-aol-instant-messenger-users-waive-right-to-privacy [Accessed 24 April 2011]
  14. ^ Bennet, J. n.d. Internet Memes. [online]. Available at: http://2010.newsweek.com/top-10/internet-memes/the-star-wars-kid.html [Accessed 25 April 2011]
  15. ^ a b c Havenstein, H. 2008. One in five employers uses social networks in hiring process. [online]. Available at: http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9114560/One_in_five_employers_uses_social_networks_in_hiring_process [Accessed 24 April 2011]
  16. ^ Bowers, T. 2008. Employers who check out job candidates on MySpace could be legally liable. [online]. Available at: http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/career/employers-who-check-out-job-candidates-on-myspace-could-be-legally-liable/338 [Accessed 24 April 2011]
  17. ^ "Illinois Becomes Second State to Prohibit Employers from Requiring Access to Employees' and Prospective Employees' Social Media Web Sites". The National Law Review. 2012-08-23. Retrieved 2012-08-23.
  18. ^ Sky News. 2009. Sacked for Calling Job Boring on Facebook. [online]. Available at: http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Facebook-Sacking-Kimberley-Swann-From-Clacton-Essex-Sacked-For-Calling-Job-Boring/Article/200902415230508 [Accessed 24 April 2011]
  19. ^ BBC News. 2008. Crew sacked over Facebook posts. Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7703129.stm [Accessed 24 April 2011]
  20. ^ Roythornes Solicitors. 2011. The employment law dangers of Social Networking. [online]. Available at: http://www.opportunitypeterborough.co.uk/bondholder/events/the-employment-law-dangers-of-social-networking [Accessed 24 April 2011]
  21. ^ "Twitter admits peeking at address books, announces privacy improvements". sky news. 16 February 2012. Retrieved 30 March 2012.
  22. ^ gladdis, keith. "Twitter secrets for sale: Privacy row as every tweet for last two years is bought up by data firm". London: daily mail. Retrieved 30 March 2012.
  23. ^ a b c Fernandez, P. 2009. Online Social Networking Sites and Privacy: Revisiting Ethical Considerations for a New Generation of Technology. [online]. Available at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1250&context=libphilprac [Accessed 25 April 2011]
  24. ^ McMenemy, D. 2008. Internet access in UK public libraries: notes and queries from a small scale study [abstract only]. Library Review [online]. Available at: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?issn=0024-2535&volume=57&issue=7&articleid=1740622&show=html [Accessed 25 April 2011]
  25. ^ Smith, C. 2011. Facebook Removes 20, 000 Underage Users Every Day. The Huffington Post. [online]. Available at: [1] [Accessed 25 April 2011]
  26. ^ Shepherd and Wedderburn. 2010. Facebook amend privacy settings following an unpleasant poke from EU privacy protectors. [online]. Available at: http://www.shepwedd.co.uk/knowledge/article/1095-2831/facebook-amend-privacy-settings-following-an-unpleasant-poke-from-eu-privacy-protectors/archive/?page=1 [Accessed 25 April 2011]
  27. ^ Saint, N. 2010. Facebook’s Response to Privacy Concerns: “If you’re not Comfortable Sharing, Don’t”. [online]. Available at: http://www.businessinsider.com/facebooks-response-to-privacy-concerns-if-youre-not-comfortable-sharing-dont-2010-5 [Accessed 25 April 2011]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Privacy_concerns_with_social_networking_services&oldid=525188653"