Essay: Social media and the decline of privacy

Introduction

The essay at hand deals with four major new media aspects: social media, constructivism, privacy and security. The nature of these aspects and their relation to each-other will be discussed in detail. The emergence of new interaction patterns and social infrastructures has created a situation where people are able express themselves freely, communicate without boundaries and also expose themselves to a variety of risks.

The author of this essay is fascinated by the idea of overexposure resulting in a zero privacy world. In other words this essay sets out to prove that the cumulation of personal data on the internet is beyond our control, thus encompassing risks regarding our privacy and security in general.

On December 25th 1990 Tim Berners Lee was able to implement the first successful communication between an HTTP client and a server via the Internet. Thus creating the World Wide Web. (Lee 1990) But that was the beginning of Web 1.0. The definition of Web 2.0 (social media) was first mentioned by Darcy DiNucci in her article "Fragmented Future." (DiNucci 1999)

It's been roughly 10 years since the emergence of social media. In terms of private information people have neglected to hide their: phone numbers, social security numbers, home addresses, e-mail addresses, work related data, credit card numbers, real names, sexual preferences, hobbies, financial status, names of family members and friends, health information, licence plate numbers etc. What's going to happen during the next ten years?

Social media and constructivism

When discussing social media and how it relates to privacy issues, we must first define the term itself. Andreas Kaplan and Michael Haenlein state that social media is "a group of Internet-based applications that build on the ideological and technological foundations of Web 2.0, and that allow the creation and exchange of user-generated content" (Kaplan & Haenlein 2010). The mention of user-generated content is of great importance. That is the mechanism from which all the privacy issues derive from. Users are the ones to generate content regarding themselves and their peers.

These Internet based-applications include blogs, social networking sites, learning environments, wikis, photo and video sharing environments, audio and music sharing sites, bookmarking sites and many more. Simple asynchronous interaction mechanisms have been replaced by more complex collaboration based systems in order to create content and avoid delays in the process. It has become surprisingly easy to add information into different networks.

By adding information and generating content, users engage in a reciprocical process of creating knowledge for each-other. This notion brings us to the concept of constructivism, thus we have to define it. One can agree with McMahon who states that social constructivism emphasizes the importance of culture and context in understanding what occurs in society and constructing knowledge based on this understanding (McMahon 1997).

When we analyze social networking practices, similar patterns emerge. Social media can be viewed as a micro-society, nevertheless all conventional rules apply (including peer pressure). Social networking sites thrive on this knowledge and use it as a binding mechanism for users. If a user decides to join a group/community, he/she is instantly given the opportunity to invite his/her friends to the same group. The same principle applies to all user-generated content. It's very hard to say "no" to a friend, thus people willingly agree to cocreate content.

The decline of privacy

Digital natives are people who "grew up with internet and technology." Being "online" all the time has become a necessity. Blogging about their thoughts, using Twitter several times a day to send short status updates, participating in social networking environments (Facebook, Orkut, Friendster), using instant messaging, sending and checking e-mails and participating in social activisim initiatives - this is the new reality.

The amount of content creation by digital natives is so immense that nobody really has the time to control and censor the sensitive data. Tweeting about one's vacation may result in burglary. Leaving a complete profile of yourself online may result in malicious social engineering practices and scams. Leaving outdated childish information online about oneself can result in being turned down for a job.

Digital natives tend to maintain their relationships by using social networking sites. It's not uncommon at all to have detailed personal information about someone you knew 10 years ago and haven't seen since. So, having 500 or more "friends" on Facebook is not really an achievement. But each and every one of these people has access to sensitive information about the user he/she befriended.

Human resource executives, insurance companies, schools and many other institutions and individuals constantly monitor social media applications to gather intelligence on the prospective employees, students, partners etc. Using Google for "background checks" is very common and often implemented in business circles. People have learned how to use social media to their advantage and that tendency is growing rapidly.

But the decline of privacy doesn't stop there. Since people rarely read end user agreements (EULA-s), they may be unaware of how their data is being used for profit. For example, Google Inc. reserves the right to use the profile information of Orkut users for advertisment purposes. Google also records all the search queries by default, this function has to be turned off manually. There are very few aspects of person's online life that remain unrecorded by some entity.

The Google EULA states that: "By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive licence to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services."

Security risks regarding openness

Sonia Livingstone is the Head of the Department of Media and Communications at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE). In 2008 she published an article titled "Taking risky opportunities in youthful content creation: teenagers’ use of social networking sites for intimacy, privacy and self-expression" (Livingstone 2008).

This article holds a great deal of relevance, since teenagers are the biggest risk group. Often times young people tend to overlook signs of danger. Since teenagers are very keen on self-presentation, they are the one group that is most likley to unveil excessive information about themselves.

In the introduction Livingstone states that "it is commonly held that at best, social networking is time-wasting and socially isolating, and at worst it allows paedophiles to groom children in their bedroom or sees teenagers lured into suicide pacts while parents think they are doing their homework" (Livingstone 2008).

While Livingstone's views may be a bit grim, she is still correct in terms of not underestimating the new playfield. How would one study the phenomenon of social networking when such infrastructures have only existed for the past 10 years? The apparent anonymity of the Internet is both a curse and a blessing. While being able to express oneself freely, people are still not in charge of the information distributed about their person. So, how can we fix it?

Conclusion

The most efficient solution would probably be "educated media consumers." Although media classes are appearing here and there in different curriculums, the focus on new media is very small. Trial and error practices will continue to flourish until social media practices remain unstandardized. At one point online security will probably be an individual course in most schools.

Kevin Mitnick has said that "security is too often merely an illusion, an illusion sometimes made even worse when gullibility, naivete, or ignorance come into play. In the end, social engineering attacks can succeed when people are stupid or, more commonly, simply ignorant about good security practices." (Mitnick 2002). One could agree with Mitnick by saying that common sense is the best tool we've got in terms of protecting ourselves on the World Wide Web.

Even though Google has "removal tools" for removing inappropriate content, this method remains ineffective. Getting rid of bad content is a very time-consuming endeavour. Implementing a "removal-tax" would not be a good solution either, since some people may want to erase their criminal records or sex offender statuses, thus creating more harm than good.

The problem of "being naked" and "having no way to solve it" still remains. The only ones that are able to do any damage (control) are the content creators themselves.

Social networking sites nowadays have "privacy options" - if the user doesn't want to share his/her pictures with her family or collegues, he/she can opt to do so. But within this constant flood of infotainment, people rarely have the chance to make these modifications. If the beformentioned user has 500 friends in Facebook, it would take him/her a very long time to categorize these people in order to implement different privacy settings. So, people take calculated risks.

Tapscott & Williams argue that the youth today are active creators of media content and hungry for interaction, but also tend to value individual rights, including the right to privacy and the right to have and express their own views (Tapscott, Williams 2006, 47). Perhaps this need for privacy is the driving force behind what would one day be known as the "educated online media consumer." It's only logical to assume that people adapt during time.

References

1) Tim Berners Lee. (1990). WWW project history. Available: http://www.w3.org/History/19921103-hypertext/hypertext/WWW/History.html. Last accessed 11 December 2009.

2) Darcy DiNucci. (1999). Fragmented Future. Available: http://www.cdinucci.com/Darcy2/articles/Print/Printarticle7.html. Last accessed 11 December 2009.

3) Kaplan Andreas M., Haenlein Michael. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media. Business Horizons, Vol. 53. Issue 1, p. 59-68.

4) McMahon M. (1997). Social Constructivism and the World Wide Web - A Paradigm for Learning. Paper presented at the ASCILITE conference. Perth, Australia.

5) Sonia Livingstone. (2008). Taking risky opportunities in youthful content creation: teenagers’ use of social networking sites for intimacy, privacy and self-expression. New Media & Society. 10 (3), 393–411.

6) Kevin Mitnick (2002). The Art of Deception. New York: John Wiley & Sons. p. 12.

7) Tapscott, D., Williams, A.D. (2006) Wikinomics: how mass collaboration changes everything, New York: Portfolio.