PrivacyThe boyd & Ellison paper outlines SNS' as challenging legal perspectives of privacy and asks "do police officers have the right to access content posted to Facebook without a warrant?" When do you think a social network is private and when is it public?
The internet is a form of open publication, and any material on it is able to be seen and used by anyone else unless rights are explicitly reserved. These rights may such as expressing a copyright for multimedia material, or, in the case of Social networking Sites, making privacy settings to suit your needs.
I would think that police would have every right to access content on Facebook or anywhere else when they can get it without being nominated as a “friend”, and without logging on with a username and password which is not theirs. If content is hidden behind passwords or privacy settings, then I believe it should not be available to any authority unless there is a legal warrant.
The Facebook terms of service, as quoted in our CourseWork has an intriguing clause: “subject to your privacy and application settings”. I’m no lawyer, but that clause seems to me to limit Facebook’s rights to “use” pretty extensively. But by all accounts (I’m a non-user of Facebook), Facebook does not encourage their users to stiffen their privacy settings, and the default privacy settings are “public”. This suggests that Facebook has scant respect for the privacy of their contributors. That said, Facebook does appear to allow its users to opt for privacy, if they try hard enough.
It is the personal responsibility of people posting information on Facebook to be aware of the implications. I have often read that “people are not aware of how public the internet is”. Well, despite the Stephanie Rice and British Intelligence examples mentioned by Tama, I think they should be aware, and it is their responsibility to be aware.
How do earlier identity modes such as anonymous identities in earlier virtual communities compare with public identities in SNS' such as Facebook? What do you think about the conflict between privacy and the need to share data (as stated in the curriculum - that's what social networking is about isn't it?).
The conflict is manifest. Facebook’s commercial interests may well be to collect information for consolidation and exploitation. The Terms of Service say “Facebook is about sharing information with others”. Facebook’s users may have certain privacy requirements even though they want to use the platform for the purpose of readily communicating with their nominated friends. If Facebook, through its Website and terms of use, allows users to specify privacy settings, then Facebook must respect them, regardless of the business objectives. Users must satisfy themselves as to the privacy of their information, and if they are not what is required, then they should not use Facebook.
This is difficult for young and inexperienced people, and making mistakes is part of the process of growing up and becoming wise. The main obligation on Facebook in this regard is that they make it clear to all their users the extent to which their personal information may be public, and how they can adjust whatever settings are available.
CopyrightIn relation to what you have read and experienced about the TOS (Terms and Services) of social networking sites, think about the copyright issues you face as a user of these sites/services... What do you think about the ownership and use as in the terms and services of SNS' ? Do companies have the right to use data as we have outlined, data has value in the information economy? What do you think about the comment that 'these companies trade in data'?
To some extent these questions are not greatly different to those on Privacy. Users posting content over which they hold copyright are obliged to be aware of the TOS applicable. Subject to the settings they make, they may be giving up that copyright.
An oft reported matter is that users are posting material whose copyright belongs to someone else. Goldman (2007) reports that (under US law) “a website isn’t liable for hosting user copyright-infringing content unless the website receives a notice from the copyright owner and fails to promptly remove the content”. This seems to give SNSs an out when pirates post illegally obtained material, as well as the obligation to do something about it when they are notified. Stone (2009) recommends that copyright owners should post material on their own domain in the first instance, on the argument that search engines are savvy about original sources.
As for “these companies trade in data”, how can this be a surprise? It’s not a secret is it? Data definitely has a commercial value, as has been amply demonstrated by Google with targeted advertisements. But the only data SNSs have to trade in is that given to them by hapless users!
Goldman, E. (2007). Social Networking Sites and the Law. Retrieved on October 16, 2009 from
http://www.ericgoldman.org/Resources/socialnetworkingsitesandthelaw.pdf Stone, P. (2009). Social Networking Sites and Copyright Violations, Or ‘Hey Wait A Minute... That’s Mine!. Retrieved on October 16, 2009 from
http://www.pattiedesign.com/pattiedesign/winter08_09.html boyd & EllisonAfter reading boyd & Ellison Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship, what do you think about the definitions of 'social network' boyd and Ellison outline? What *is* a social network? What could a 'network connection' potentially mean? Do you feel the definition of a social network might include other elements or shouldn't include some elements? Is or has anything changed since the paper was written?
I am basically unfamiliar with Social Network Sites such as Facebook, MySpace or the others mentioned in the CourseWork. I am not a member of any of these and am unlikely to ever become one unless obliged to do so by this unit or some other. (My venture into Twitter and Flikr has been scary enough!) However, I am prepared to accept the three part definition by Boyd & Ellison on the grounds that (a) I can understand it, (b) it seems to make sense and (c) I accept their expertise (although, with respect to Ms. Boyd, I am a bit doubtful about a person suffering an affectation that requires her to decapitalise her name, but acknowledge that that is a minor crime).
Since some SNSs seem to link people to the networks of their friends, as described in the video in Tama’s CourseWork “Social Networking in English”, then theoretically a network could cover the entire world’s population. James Valentine, an afternoon presenter on Sydney ABC local radio 702 used to have a segment called “degrees of separation” where he challenged two perfect strangers to find a common acquaintance in a time limited on-air conversation. Mostly they failed, but I was amazed at the occasional success and how close many others got to it. So a “network connection” could easily be anyone in the world! How terrifying to imagine a grandly popular Social Networking Site which could link any two people together.
