"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.
So let me get this right, I want everything for free but I don't want the providers to be able to make a profit. Lets see how long the business you and your coworkers are employed at lasts with that business plan. Is it just me or do some people seem to be physically unable to accept personal responsibility, if you don't want info to be out there, don't put it out there. You are allowed to not have a facebook or twitter account.
I have been a computer and network security professional for over twenty years, and have paid great attention to the growth of social networking. Anyone that joins FaceBook is asking for trouble, whether it's now or later down the road. Yes, the service is free, but the "product" is YOU.
As Diane's guest stated, you are putting your whole life out there for almost anyone to see. FB doesn't care about your privacy, they will continue to modify their settings to best fit their business model.
If you join FB and expect any type of privacy, then you're in for a big surprise, and have no one to blame but yourself. And, as you've probably guessed, I am not a member of any social network.
The internet is a powerful tool of the people. It's not real life, it's not church, it's not a grocery store, it's not your bedroom, it's not TV...
Learn how to respect it for what it is, instead of taking its power away.
Don't blame it for your own negligence.
"tim846 wrote:
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!
January 10, 2012 - 11:40 am"
Does that mean that the New York Times and other Sites that charge for access will no longer plant Cookies on our Computers or traffic in our personal information.
In the pre Cable days, when Ads were only a pain, complainers were told, "Well if you don't like the ads that support the free content you enjoy, get Cable and pay for the content yourself".
Well we did get Cable and now pay (handsomely) for the content but and are nevertheless swamped by even more Ads!!
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
"robertg wrote:
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?
January 10, 2012 - 11:40 am"
Something odd happened to me, just last week. With no evidence that my HotMail Account was being abused, I got this---
"Your account has been blocked
Why are you seeing this?
someone may have used your account to send out a lot of junk messages (or something else that violates The Windows Live Terms of
service).
We’re here to help you get your account back.
What do you need to do?
We’ll ask you to provide us with a mobile phone number where we can send you a verification code and we ‘ll add This phone
number to your
Windows Live profile for future use. After you enter the code, you can change your password and sign in.
We’ve cleaned your account settings
Often customers get here because someone else has access to your account and are using it without your knowledge to send spam To
protect you
and your contacts, we’ve removed any Hotmal I auto-replies or linked accounts you may have had."
Since I didn't have a Mobile Phone Number to throw them, the following is what I had to do---
(Cont)
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
(Cont)
"Recover your Windows Live account
Help us to make sure that this is you. To recover your account, enter as
much information as you can.
Account information
First Name:
Enter a valid last name.
Last Name:
Enter a valid year. (Example: 1990)
Birth date:
Country/region:
State:
ZIP code:
The secret answer to your question: last name
Which passwords have you used for this account? (Enter one password per
text box.):
Hotmail information
What was the subject line of some of the email messages you've recently
sent? (Enter one subject line per text box.):
Name some of the folders you've created. Don't use default folders such
as Junk, Drafts, and Sent. (Enter one folder name per text box.):
What are the email addresses of some of the contacts you've recently
sent mail to? (Enter one email address per text box.):
Billing information
Last five digits of the Xbox LIVe or Zune pre-paid card number:
Name as it appears on credit card:
Last four digits of the credit card number:
Credit card expiration date:
This isn't case sensitive
Submit"
There was no way to find the actual reason the account was blocked.
Is this lame???
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
hotlinking mchuan ??? LOL
SECURITY violation WARNING WARNING
thar be monstyers out there....
generic anon data GOOD
specific info unit person GOOD(for ind and fam
GOOD for HONEST metric science and for ppl(NOT profit$ healthcare) promoting the PUBIC General Good and IT's privates(:-})-*
why census bureau and and other agencies used by OUR US gov always is/was struggle between control of ways and means for general GOOD or privates MEAN(profit$ for one percent)...
ANY other Miss USe violation of past individual dignity AND American(SIM dropping pants n wurst n other liberties like torture indefinite dtention= privacy?(bugware NOW builtin... for 'protection' of best eunichs wealth(the one percent of the one percent like Skye Nett or best US citizens like FB or Wally worldmart and other ideals(sorry BUT real world out there))- such as ideals of privacy MUST be sacrificed- and/OR cardboard box MY castle etc...
all fair in pursuit of love of money OR being a generic organic device(god- small 'g')
hence in g.o.d. we trUSt/ do NOT worship icon$ etc
thx u- go forth and ctrl z or c as US see fIT.
Nice show... would like to have slipped Dr note re each guessed spoke/ promoted re fEASEabilities of proposed proposals promoting promised publix goods(ALWAYS about selling the goods and being a 'pro' g.o.d.- always USe Soylent Green made locally- ppl serving ppl what IT all about)
edit out pls/ DHS this is NOT the terrorist you are looking for...
content provided without any thought which is MAJOR difference between a REAL fone call or written letter or vidcall OR immersion into a semianon trance-like state(set up by prior TV/ movie(n 3D) viewing and VIRTUAL game playing- brain software wise(?)) bypassing normal B.R.A.I.N.(Binary Recode Analog Input Network)parameters for buffering of external outputs for the generic orgasmic(teehee) devices.
(engaging foot into mouth(porn?) prior to engaging brain... due to damage/defect OR momentary lapse of ctrl c)
still olde hero new terrarist unemployable terminated whistleblower homeless veteran occupier- "fine"- thanks for typing/asking(posted from santorum hdqtrs- paid for by(US donot have to say)).
THANKS again Dr Dee- thanks for allowing our access to your US GI healthcare system- Dr Google now updated and was NOT providing relevant results(no profIT$ there...) and VA still processing US- should be any decade now so don't worry... BE happy... - g.o.d.
"Pancake Rankin wrote:
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.
January 10, 2012 - 11:36 am"
Dear Flapjack:
Allow me to say this about that.
I was mildly surprised that Diane allowed that Guy, Jeff Jarvis (?), to interrupt and talk over her again and again.
But I was really stunned to see that she has abandoned her Audio Input Gating Microphone System.
In the early days of the DRShow, certain non grata persons (Callers) would get through to comment. When the Callers began their impassioned pleas of justice for Palestine, for example, Diane would dive for the cutoff switch, but often the caller would get in a few plaintive sentences before he could be cut off.
So, Diane had a special system built that would instantly shut down the Caller in response to any speech, or sound, from Diane, which she ruthlessly applied.
What a coincidence, she, losing her own voice not long after creating a way to deprive others of theirs.
Now, I am delighted to see that both her voice is much improved and she is no longer so cursory in silencing her Caller Friends who are an essential part of the Program.
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
I'm not worried about things leaking from my Facebook wall to the open web. For people, like me, who are non celebrity status, the open web is more private than my Facebook wall. Anything I post on Facebook goes right in front of my personal friends. I'm careful what I say because I know it's being spread to my friends. Things seem more private on the open web since practically no one finds something like my blog that's posted on the open web.
This situation is the opposite of what most people worry about with the privacy issue on Facebook. If one is not a celebrity and also one is not looking for a new job where potential employers may be doing Google searches, the open web is more anonymous and therefore private. No worry about things leaking from Facebook to the open web. When I post something to either location, I want to share it with the public anyway.
I am not a lobbyist. My opinions are posted without pay.
Battling is not why I listen and read comments.
Bad actors and nihilists upset me, as do corporate clones.
DRShow has been tolerant with me and overly tolerant with others.
I called some stranger a peeping Tom because that is an excellent metaphor for data miners. His comments suggested he was in the data selling business.
I called other male sounding posters "cutters" because they are of the mindset that budget cutting hurts helpless people and this gratifies their sadistic fetish.
They try to shock to garner attention, but they would have to be self-mutilators in order to exhibit their lack of empathy and low self-esteem. They cut with their politics, their hate speech, their cruelty, their selfish profit preaching and I do not doubt they are often on the verge of stabbing out in rage. It is a sick society that produces and maybe even pays demented bullies. They are disrupters rather than discussants and need banning. (Some may be Cointelpro, like the violent paid infiltrators who endanger Occupy.)
But Diane apparently is not allowed to ban bullying guests forced upon her by powerful interests above. I used to think that even though she kept old fashioned political limits that she was a strong lady and in charge. But as I reflect on observations I can only suspect she is a hostage barely holding onto her chair.
Fullmonty: Don't be hating Jews. Deplore Israeli government crimes instead.
Diane, blow the whistle before they can you and then you can't be called a disgruntled former employee. Bill Moyers got canned at WNET by the Rockerfeller Foundation so it is no disgrace. He's already back on APT Friday nights. Maybe you need to be on APT too. Fight for your inner voice.
Totally absent from the discussion, any mention of individual responsibility. If you value privacy, don't go on SOCIAL media. Facebook is a medium for sharing information. It's never pretended to be anything but. If you can't figure out FB's privacy settings, maybe FB isn't the place for you. Go away, but don't, as one panelist proposed, rely on the FTC to intervene and make up for your deficiencies.
agreed differing voices vital to expose such thickheaded ideals such as oUrS...
stimulating minds... IT will never last
thinking to hard(lazy carbon-based bags of dirty water)
and prior shows MD caller... lazy- work three jobs as US did to make ends meet(middle part gone now though)
'Volunteered for military service instead- was 'easier'. DEFINITELY better healthcare... mostly.
Perhaps someone has brought this up already, but only have time to scan the comments.
I think this is a wonderful beginning to the debate about privacy in a high-tech time. But it is only a beginning. The conversation touched on how we use electronic media (here I mean blogs, and facebook, and email) and only just touched on the different expectation of these. What I post here I post understanding that is available in a fully public setting. But what I post on Facebook (at least before the site began changing its privacy settings) I posted with the expectations that it would go no further than the group I selected as "friends". So a public venue, but like that of a party at a friend's house. When I blog, it's public conversation. When I email, it's private conversation.
That is how we USE the media, but that is not how it is regulated. The conflict lies in that we have no electronic space that is not only expected to be private but is equally regulated as private; yet we are both socially and legally required to use electronic media. By socially, I mean friends want me, expect me, and require me to email them rather than phone or post-mail them information. As a writer, I submit stories to publications. Many only take email submissions. By legally I mean that much of our medical information is sent via electronic mail -- when we change doctors, our health records may be emailed to the next place. We expected -- and have every right to expect -- that those health-care-provider emails are secure and encrypted, but it is not always the case.
While I understand the risks of over-regulating information -- there is a huge risk -- we are currently under-regulating information and that can prove just as crippling. If the examples of social / private information used in public decisions becomes the norm, people will need to shun sharing any information on the internet.
Ms. Rehm should refrain from putting individuals with valid concerns in an antagonist mode. Ms. Rehm's tone with Jeff Jarvis's argument discounted several valid concerns. Ms. Rehm and her other panelist concerns were valid, though her bias misrepresents a dynamic argument. Like most arguments there are many dimensions.
One great potential for social networking is to provide a wider perspective of the truth more representative of the populace. This argument does not discount regulation to protect the rights of an individual. The passion of too many arguments catch the wave of popularity ignoring the collateral damage of its good intention. Mr. Jarvis frustrations most likely came as a precaution of such a wave.
Ms. Rehm has made a living in a one-to-many form of communication. Social networking has the potential for a many-to-many form of communication. What I read from Mr. Jarvis was a passion to prevent communication from moving back to solitude.
What is the Do Good Gauge?
Thank you for the topic. I had no idea third party companies are mining my data through my ISP. And I certainly never imagined anyone was looking at my emails, except the person I sent it to.
When you go to the library and check out a book on the history of marijuana use, that information is not sold and is not given to law enforcement without a subpoena. There is an expected privacy that has been set up by our society that we have a right to privacy of what we choose to read. Of course, unless we choose to, that is opt in. This would be like our publicly commenting on a book we read on history of marijuana, say to a newspaper reporter. But that is our choice. This should be no different than our looking up information on the Internet. We have already set this societal standard.
Additionally, we have already set the standard that communication between two people, even if it is through a third party, is not to be used by that third party or sold to a fourth party, well, at least the content of that communication. If I send a letter through the U.S. Postal Service, by law, they can not look at it. They can not tell anyone that I sent that letter to that person. They can't keep a record of who I send letters to and sell that data to someone else. We have already set a standard. In my opinion, this is no different than email.
The only exception is phone companies. They publicize our name and our phone number. And, they may sell that list to other companies. But even in that case, we can opt out by asking, or paying, to have an unpublished phone. And U.S. government also set standard that we should not receive phone sales calls if we sign up for the list. Again, we can opt out.
I have some other personal anecdotes to share, but I will spare you as this is long already. Tomorrow, I'm calling my ISP to opt out of their data collection of my Internet activity.
When all your problems are solved you're out of the game.
Congratulations Neo Con, you WIN!
Reince, Jeb, Austan, Newt... where the h_ll do these people find baby names?
And I thought some of the Lakeieeyashas and 'Juhouwannes in my classes were made up!
Please remember that the internet is a PUBLIC resource, within which WE ALLOW users such as Facebook and Google TO EXIST.
Facebook (Zuckerberg), Google (Brinn) and Wikipedia (Jim Wales) all make trillions off of our public bandwidth and people's creativity W/O PAYING US A PENNY!
Google actually went so far as to DIGITALLY SCAN an ENTIRE LIBRARY (University of Michigan) full of books, and, announce its intent to make their content available on line, for free!
It's time Google, Wikipedia and Facebook realize that NO ONE skates for free. If ya' wanna dance, ya' gotta pay The Fiddler.