Facebook, Privacy, and the Nature of the Beast

Wednesday, May 12, 2010
I use Facebook. I have a blog. I use Twitter. I have a presence on LinkedIn and other professional clearinghouses. This is what I choose - anyone who wants to find me can do so, and my own behavior has made this pretty easy for them.

Which is why I choose not to whine about how my on-line presence has compromised my privacy.

Now, don't get me wrong - I don't think businesses who choose to engage in an on-line business model should have the right to give away my personal or financial information to the highest bidder. What I'm talking about here is social media. Media that I myself have voluntarily joined for my own reasons.

The current brouhaha is about Facebook's increasingly douchey policies when it comes to protecting (or more accurately, not protecting) the privacy of it's users. I have my privacy on Facebook set to a level where I'm comfortable, but there's a lot of buzz around how we should "teach Facebook a lesson" about "protecting our privacy." There's even a netroots movement to boycott Facebook for the day (June 6th, in case you're interested) as a way to change their behavior.

I understand why Facebook has made the changes they have. I mean, seriously - it's not rocket science. Facebook is a FREE SERVICE. That means their revenue stream is all about their advertisers. You can bet that any change they make to their privacy policies has everything to do with their advertisers being able to data mine your preferences for the purposes of targeted advertisements* and nothing to do with what's best for their so-called "customers." Unless significant numbers of people give up their Facebook accounts in protest (which I don't think is going to happen), Facebook will continue to cater to their revenue stream to the detriment of its users.

Don't like it? There's an easy answer - don't use social media. I assume that everything I put on the Internet through my blog, Twitter and Facebook are in the public domain (regardless of my so-called "privacy settings"). Everything. If I don't want my opinions in the public domain, I don't put them on the Internet. Simple.

Make no mistake - I'm concerned about privacy, and I support the EFF and other watchdog organizations who fight the good fight on our behalf. I just think it's incredibly naive to assume that if you choose to use social media, that your privacy isn't ALREADY compromised. You think Facebook and other businesses have your best interests at heart? Bitch, please. As my political science professor used to say - follow the money. If compromising your privacy is going to lead to someone, anyone, making money - your privacy is toast. Welcome to reality.


________________
*Except their data-mining technology appears to blow big chunks. I keep getting a Facebook ad for Sarah Palin's latest Rally of the Damned here in Denver. Really? You think that's an activity I'm liable to attend? Yeah. I'll get right on that. Right after I attend my John Birch Society meeting.

8 comments:

Phiala said...

That.

Everything I put online is public, whether blog, twitter, facebook, whatever. I don't assume privacy for any of it.

I have a PO Box, and that appears online, as does my cell # for business reasons. If you wanted my home address or phone you could probably find it easily.

I expect that companies I do business with will keep my passwords, credit card, etc, protected, but anything I say is fair game. That means I don't post anything that I wouldn't want my mom or my boss to see. Much. My mom reads my blog, after all.

I do things that require me to be easily findable online, and take pride in my Google ranking. I realize that my approach of public persona / private persona is not for everyone, but everyone has to realize that private isn't necessarily so.

Beastly said...

I am not interesting enough or despicable enough for anyone to care much about me or my activities anyway. If I were more interesting I think it might be time to worry about who sees my information.

Alex said...

For the most part if you put the information on a computer and that computer is connected to the internet you cannot say it is secure. You can certainly take many steps to help secure your own network, but all that aside, if it is connected or on a wireless network then your information could be compromised.

Hopefully a certain amount of preventive measures and a reasonable level of anonymity will help keep the masses at bay. If someone decides to target you specifically though it is only a matter of time on their part before your information is compromised.

Locks are only to keep the honest people out.

Anne C. said...

And I believe that is the plot of that mildly entertaining B movie, The Net.

vince said...

I blog, I tweet, but I don't do Facebook, although I have friends and relatives trying to bring me over to the dark side. :-). I'm careful about what I say publicly, mostly about people in my life who didn't ask to be talked about. Hence my cryptic references.

My problem with Facebook is that the rules on what can be made private keeps changing. And the changes are not made public in advance. It's like what Google did with Buzz. It's their apps, they can change the rules. But they should inform people in advance. Well in advance. Should. Not will.

Having said that, the Internet is NOT the place for privacy. If you don't want it known, wither don't mention it online or lie though your teeth. It's that simple.

WendyB_09 said...

Don't have a blog or FB or twitter account. Have a minimum presence on Linked-In. Leaning towards FB simply because one of my organizational forums moved our group account there and shut down the home-grown site they'd had for a few years. Catering to the younger college crowd I suspect.

Having taught conference sessions on Nettiquette & personal on-line risk management for many years, this has been an ongoing concern for quite a while. Anyone can see anything you have posted on-line and if your prospective employers can find your pages, you can bet your last dollar the advertisers will too. Shoot, I still get spooked when my email provider's ads pick up on message content.

At work (law firm) we now include in our fee agreement a section on social media. The client agrees to check their sites, remove anything that could be damaging to their case, and agree to "friend" someone from our firm (meaning me) so we can monitor during the course of the case. Matter of fact I've got several new clients I have to research this week.

Why are we doing this? We recently had a very good case go down the tubes fast when opposing counsel found pics of our client goofing around with friends before his injuries and are now using it against him. Client was doing nothing wrong, but the pics gave an undesireable impression that could influence a jury against him.

So now we check everyone. And yes I feel like I'm prying.

Nothing on the web is private.

Alex said...

I have also recently received an e-mail telling me of a new product being created as an alternative to Facebook for social networking that is significantly more secure. http://joindiaspora.com/ has been setup for it. Looks like their plan is to have it ready by the end of the summer, but it might be worth watching to see if anything comes of it.

Jeri said...

Part of the attraction of facebook is the widespread nature of it - the almost anarchistic, self-evolving nature of user and developer-built content. Yes, the FB privacy policies (I agree, follow the money) are annoying and bear close watching, and many of the social activities like the games don't appeal, still, it's great that 85% of my real life friends are on the platform.

Would I pay a nominal amount for a more secure platform, if it meant the developers were watching out for my security, rather than monetizing eyeballs for ad content and potential third party tie-ins? Only if the potential for a really widespread migration were there. Money - in small amounts anyway - isn't the issue, it's the widespread user base that's made it increasingly successful.