"I Know Who You Are and I Saw What You Did: Social Networks and the Death of Privacy"
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-01-10/i-know-who-you-are-and-i-saw-what-you-did-social-networks-and-death-privacy
Social networks have empowered us and connected us to people around the world. In the last year, they have even been credited with fostering democracies. But they have also eroded our personal privacy and made us more vulnerable. Data aggregator services use our on line activity to compile an astonishing amount of information on us and sell it to others. Potential employers and colleges judge candidates in part by their social network pages. The law has not yet caught up with the technology. Diane and her guests discuss protecting our privacy in the digital age.
Guests
Lori Andrews
law professor and the director of the Institute for Science, Law and Technology at Illinois Institute of Technology, author of "I Know Who You Are And I Saw What You Did: Social Networks and the Death of Privacy."
Marc Rotenberg
executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center and teaches Information Privacy Law at Georgetown University Law Center.
Jeff Jarvis
associate professor and director of the interactive journalism program at the City University of New York's Graduate School of Journalism, blogs at Buzzmachine.com, and author of “Public Parts: How Sharing In The Digital Age Improves The Way We Work And Live.”
Related Items
Program Highlights
Millions are on Facebook, Twitter, and other social networks posting pictures and details of life, but it's not just friends who read all this. How we use social networks can have a major impact on our lives and, indeed, our future. Our guests explore how much information we may be sharing - both intentionally and unintentionally - and how it may affect our employment prospects, personal relationships, and more.
Privacy A Top Concern Of Users
Privacy is the issue that constantly comes up in policy discussions, Marc Rotenberg said. In his view, we should be able to use social networks with some confidence our privacy will be protected. "So the question is what type of updates to the law do we need to make so that people can use the services with the expectation that their privacy will be respected?" Rotenberg said. Lori Andrews pointed out that although each individual has a choice about how much or how little to post on social networks, many people have no idea about how their images, in particular, might be used. "Thirty-five percent of employers say they refuse to hire people if they have a Facebook photo with a drink in their hand or provocative dress. So you can think about, you know, you might be at a wedding, you might be wearing some low-cut thing and you, as a woman, may be then denied a job because of that," Andrews said.
How The Law Is Keeping Up With Concerns
Rotenberg said one of the ongoing problems is the fact that companies keep changing privacy policies and users may not be fully aware of the changes. "You can't say to your users, once they've expressed a privacy preference, that you will then go in and change it," he said. Rotenberg said that with Facebook in particular, the new "Timeline" feature seems to take control away from the user about which information is being made publicly available. Andrews pointed out that though some changes might seem harmless, there may be unintended and serious consequences. For
instance, when Facebook made people's friend lists public, some Iranians who had family members studying in the U.S. that could be picked out from Facebook posts on their own pages were arrested by Iranian authorities, Andrews said.
The Benefits Of Sharing
On the positive side, Jeff Jarvis points out some of the reasons many people love social networking. "We can share with each other, find each other, create publics, create movements like Occupy Wall Street. We have power we never had," Jarvis said. He believes there are many benefits to more people sharing more information - about health, social activism, and more. Andrews countered Jarvis's arguments with her own concerns that social networks are "narrowing" our behaviors and that pieces of information on social networking sites that we may not even realize could be harmful to us could be used in ways we've never anticipated. Jarvis argued that it's not the information-sharing itself that's the problem - it's how the information is used. But Andrews said that is precisely her point - we can't control how many different people or entities will use our information, so it's essential to protect that information from the start.
"Removing" Information From The Internet
One caller asked about how easy or difficult it would be to remove some of her personal information from the Internet. "The short answer is that it's very difficult for an individual to remove information," Rotenberg said. "On the other hand it's not so difficult to regulate the practice of companies that collect and sell information about individuals," he said.
You can read the full transcript here
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Nope, exactly backwards. We are prey because the Internet is a business tool.
We don't know who "they" are; and we can't see what "they" do until it's too late. Capitalism is anti-social, so we can never safely borrow and lend with "friends." Notice how many more predatory jobs are opening up? The wealthy give us permission to hunt our fellows down for them, and we get a little taste of flesh as a meager reward. Banal evil is growing exponentially. The owners of the technological means demand it.
Constant slamming of capitalism, is it just another interpretation of self inflicted razor blade cuts hidden from public view. For some misery is a friend, a reliable friend that's always there.
"Rhinehard" boasts how the two popular meanings of "cutter" (self-injurer, budget slasher) are combined in persons like himself. Maybe he's correct. As a licensed counselor I treat people who cut because they feel powerless, deprived and numb (unable to experience either empathy or value in self). Cryptofascists (using screen names that suggest nihilism or admiration of Nazism) are mentally ill people screaming for help, but the DRShow blog might not be the appropriate setting. People must be cautious what they share on the Internet.
reinhard makes an interesting point. I too have come to the conclusion that liberalism is a state of self inflicted perpetual unhappiness. I believe the surveys on the subject bare this out as well.
My pet peeve is all the public radio and tv stations and shows I listen to encouraging me to tweet or like them on Facebook -- even people like Emily Rooney, Callie Crossley. Diane Rehm??
Shouldn't they take some responsibility for encouraging people to establish these pages and accounts??
Regarding Facebook and Twitter, software already exists and is use beyond the law and with the support of government security authorities to tap into these social networks and collect data and report what they believe is suspicious activity.
Big Brother is here and he is our relative who we have invited to the table.
Smokey Beagle
It is one thing to do business, but it is a different thing to invade the privacy of any individual. I, for one, don't want people trying to sell me things. If I am interested in a product, I want to search it out.
I have always thought that the massive databases with every minute detail on every person is a total invasion of privacy.
Nancy-
These personalities are asking their listeners to show their support, just like asking them to buy a bumper sticker or wear a t-shirt. They are not advocating that you get an account, they are asking that you use the accounts you have already established.
Social networking platforms would not be viable business entities if they were not in a position to commoditize and trade in personal information. Using terms like "privacy" and "consent" links these formats to aspects of bodily integrity and sexuality familiar to feminists. Most women do not tolerate invasion. Structural vulnerabilities and unprotected rights are de riguer on the Internet.
Allure to participation requires misinformation, false assurances and inducements. No adequate regulation will ever be forthcoming because of marketing needs of predatory enterprises that augment the income stream of the 1%. The same lobbying and drowning out that opposes the Consumer Finance Protection Agency are at full tilt in opposing a civilized Internet with reasonable, enforceable rules. The rude strident voice of the male lobbyist on this show illustrates my point. Diane, do not let him yell in your face. Cut him off.
jlynwood -
Blaming social media for targeted advertising is ridiculous. We are surrounded by advertising everywhere, all the time. If you never saw any advertising, how would you know about new products or services that have just hit the market? From your friends or colleagues? Businesses know that a recommendation from a friend is typically MUCH more influential than any other method and they are learning how to exploit that influence. You may not remember a time when tv personalities did advertisements during their shows. This was the exact same tactic by advertisers--50 years ago!
tim846 is obviously "in the biz." He cannot see the difference between a billboard and a peeping Tom. Are you a peeper, tim?
Please remember: social media sites like Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, etc. are services that we get to use for FREE in exchange for providing personal information and a set of eyeballs for advertisers! Putting any kind of grand social responsibility above profit for these businesses ignores their core goal of staying profitable. Wikipedia has continual funding issues for this reason!
I almost don't use facebook because of their surreptitious manner of gathering information for their needs under the guise of protecting me:
Examples:
1) after logging on, facebook has asked that I verify who I am by identifying photos of people who may be my friends. Incredible. I was already logged on, but they wanted me to help speed up their face-id tool. I refused.
2) I was again logged on, but facebook said that I was using a computer that facebook did not recognize (though it is the same computer I have always used) so I had to also give them my birthday. I gave this.
How and where do I complain about this conduct?
Cut off Jeff Jarvis ' mic.
robertg:
It's all routine, new deceptions every week.
When the lobbyists posting here threaten that Freebies would be lost if we refuse to let bidness have its wicked way with us that is extortion. What he fails to understand is that his Freebies ain't free and that user financed sites are much cheaper in the long run than his deceptive traps.
I'm glad I never Facebooked. I have too many real friends to waste time on pretend friends, and expose my nakedness to perverts.
Why does BIDNESS claim rights denied to citizens? Profit over life is a regime of death.
I am not a supporter of Santorum, however, I don't like he has been a victim of "google".
I am not a supporter of Santorum, however, I don't like he has been a victim of "google".
MikeR; I second the motion. Jeff Jarvis is a "cutter."
I am a 20 year old College sophomore who deleted his Facebook after hearing about my upperclassmen friends having their employers asking them for their usernames and password to their accounts before being hired.
Facebook's business is selling your information to companies. OBVIOUSLY their goal is no more privacy, for the more information they have about you, the more valuable you become.
I would agree, MikeR! Jeff Jarvis is one of the rudest guests in recent memory--interrupting everyone and not acknowledging the validity of anyone's opinion but his own. He has not helped the discussion, imho. Too bad. It's an important topic.
SOPA and other actual and proposed legislation gives stronger online protection to RIAA and MPAA than individuals have.
Most people are members of different cultures that have different social norms, and expectations. We behave according to the maxim "when in Rome, do as the Romans do". We do not behave the same cross culturally. There are social norms that are appropriate for friends and family, but that are not appropriate for the work place culture. To be held accountable for cultural behavior that was uncovered by employers, law enforcement, etc. out of context is not justifiable.
Jeff Jarvis blames bad actors for abusing sensitive information rather than a larger system that makes it hard for users to keep information private. It is rhetorically similar to the old "Guns don't kill people, people do." That might be true if a individual person malevolently leaks sensitive information about another person, but today's discussion is mainly about corporations that mine data on an international scale with the general blessing of our legal system. It would be like a war arms profiteer claiming ignorance that the weapons they sold might be used to kill people. Companies like Facebook aid and abet such abuses of privacy and I could care less if they lose money if such abuses are curtailed. Thank you Diane Rehm for covering this topic as I am well aware that Reputation.com donates to NPR.
Nancy, that is a very good point.
Nancy Wilson is correct about the misguided momentum of media personalities asking us to tweet. Smokey Beagle is astute in observing how unregulated invasion of privacy is a boon to our increasingly repressive National Security State. We critics are bookmarked already and Diane is herding in more sheeples.
Jeff Jarvis is one of the worst guests you have had in recent memory. He is inconsiderate and rude, and is apparently incapable of engaging in a back and forth conversation without interrupting his counterpart. It is extremely maddening to listen to a conversation that includes him. This is unfortunate, as this important issue deserves further conversation and consideration. Please encourage your guests to remain respectful, regardless of their personality or personal views on a particular matter.
csbellina-
No employer can demand--or even request!--access to your private accounts. Your employer does not get to demand keys to your house to search it either. Anyone that has their "usernames and passwords" requested should file a lawsuit against the employer.
I completely agree. While he may be an intelligent and thoughful individual, this is not a forum in which is is capable of participating. Stick to monologues or writing so the rest of us can stop listening to you at our own choosing without having to turn the station and miss the reat of what we might want to hear. This is a conversational show, and he clearly ins't capable of carrying one.
Jeff Jarvis, good luck with 'controlling the way people use the information'. If a company wants to fire you, or not hire you, they can always come up with an excuse to do so, and very few people can afford to challenge those decisions in court. If information is out there, even outright falsehoods and lies, it can be used for almost any reason in this country, and with no accountability. Why, it could even be used to start a war.
Dear "Pancake"-
Making snide remarks about me and asking if I'm a "peeping Tom" is juvenile and does not forward the conversation. I am a prolific social media user. I understand how to express myself and interact online.
If you are out in the yard and I see you as I walk by, that is not an invasion of privacy! If you are in your house in front of your large windows with the shades open and people can see you from the street they are not invading your privacy. At some point you must take personal responsibility for obscuring things you do not want to be seen, online or in person.