Joe Lipari, a well-known American comedian took to the extremely common social media site Facebook to share the frustrating experience he had at the Apple Store. Lipari, using Facebook as it was intended, responded to the prompt ‘What’s on your mind?’ and updated his status accordingly. Lipari posted an aggressive quote from the movie Fight Club targeted towards the Apple Store, in an attempt to de-stress from his unsatisfying experience. Moments later an NYPD Swat team occupied his apartment, “their guns drawn” already starting to “tear the place apart”(Hoback, Terms and Conditions May Apply). Only after the fact did Lipari realize that this was in response to his aggressive Facebook status. The authorities flagged the status and Lipari’s address was immediately retrieved prompting the instantaneous search of his apartment. This begs the question of personal privacy on the Internet. While Facebook users believe the information they post is private, and only accessible according to their personal privacy settings, in reality it seems that no information put on the Internet is private at all.

Mark Zuckerberg founded Facebook, the popular social media site, in 2004. Since then, the site has grown exponentially to be the world’s most popular social media site, used as a database for people’s personal information. Initially a benign web database for exclusive users with Harvard.edu email addresses, the site opened to the public and “people [began] willingly publiciz[ing] where they live, their religious and political views, an alphabetized list of all their friends, personal email addresses, phone numbers, hundreds of photos of themselves, and even status updates about what they were doing moment to moment” (Hoback, Terms and Conditions May Apply). Christopher Startinsky, the Deputy Director of the CIA claims this “is truly a dream come true for the CIA… after years of secretly monitoring the public”; this information is voluntarily made accessible. This begs the question of personal privacy. Taking a closer look at Facebook’s Terms and Agreements, users seem to not realize their diminishing privacy when they use Facebook as it was intended.

While we brainlessly click through privacy settings and privacy policy agreements when we sign up for Facebook, users are missing the very important fine print. After years of operation, it is clear that Facebook now has the largest database of collected information on any given person. Trudy Howels, a professor of Computer Science at the Rochester Institute of Technology cautions “privacy considerations become an issue as soon as any data are made public; one could argue that simply the collection and storage of the data presents some level of risk” (Data, Data Quality, and Ethical Use, 8). Howels poses a very important point that once data is public, the modes that this information could be used are unforeseeable to the common Facebook user. Howels also points out that the mere storage of such data implies a desire to use this information for ulterior reasons to why it was put online in the first place. Derek S. Witte, a commercial litigator and eDiscovery lawyer, writes in Journal of Internet Law: Privacy Deleted, “once an individual posts information on Facebook, neither the courts, nor Facebook itself, can promise that the information will remain private and confidential” (19). In its current Privacy Policy, Facebook promises law enforcement that they would respond to requests seeking information on any given profile in its database. Facebook’s current privacy policy details that they “[do] not actually require any particular criminal subpoena or warrant simply provided that ‘we review each request for records individually’” (Witte, 18). Facebook could not essentially deny the NSA or CIA a request to access a profile as Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks notes, “US Intelligence is able to bring legal and political pressure to Facebook” (Facebook, Google, Yahoo are Spying Tools). The ease at which a person’s information from Facebook can be accessed is eye opening and should pose a red flag to all Facebook users.

Most users are under the assumption that they can altar their Facebook privacy settings giving them a greater sense of control on their privacy. Each aspect of the profile can be adjusted to the users comfort level, which is presumably totally private. In 2009 Facebook changed their privacy settings, and changed the defaults of sharing, without notifying its users in advance. Facebook “turned what was once private information into totally public information” overnight (Hoback, Terms and Conditions May Apply). The default setting was changed so that ‘everyone’ could view and search a given users information. Zuckerberg explained, “the way we’ve designed the site is that it’s a community thing. So people want to share with just there friends but a lot of people also want to share with the community around them”. However, Dana Boyd, Senior Research Manager rightfully states “the problem with defaults is that you get comfortable with whatever the default is” and “as time passed, more and more information was being shared by default”(Hoback, Terms and Conditions May Apply). This desensitizes Facebook users on the whole notion of privacy and makes it acceptable to publicize this information so freely without understanding the consequences, later described in this article.

While it is understood that the mere collection of data posses a threat to personal privacy and security, more troubling is the way this data is used. Users should pay attention “not that data are collected and stored, often without knowledge or permission, but how the data stored and collected are used” (Howels, 7). Julian Assange sat down with Russia Today and explained that there is a blurred line between the interest of the state and the interest of commercial business in the West (Facebook, Google, Yahoo are Spying Tools). Assange believes that “Facebook in particular is the most appalling spying machine that has ever been invented” with “the worlds most comprehensive database about people… all sitting within the United States, all accessible to US intelligence” (Facebook, Google, Yahoo are Spying Tools).

This would only be an issue if US intelligence wanted to use this type of data, however it is a fact that they do. With this large amount of data, “according to the department of homeland security, Facebook has replaced almost every other CIA information gathering program since it was launched in 2004” (Hoback, Terms and Conditions May Apply). Derek S. Witte, a commercial litigator and eDiscovery lawyer, writes in Privacy Deleted, a Journal of Internet Law, “it is difficult to understand how Justices of the US Supreme Court can openly oppose the creation of an American “Big Brother” when “Big Brother” already exists in the guise of Google, Facebook and, now it seems, the NSA” (13). Whistle blower, Edward Snowden was the first to bring the NSA’s spying database to light, to which “the government responded to Snowden’s allegations by contending that Section 215 of the Patriot Act allows for this indiscriminate collection of data because it could be relevant to a terrorism investigation at some point in time” (Witte, 13). This preventative clause that gives the NSA cause to continuously monitor web and cell traffic, including Facebook activity, is not only a violation of privacy but is strongly misleading as seen in the Joe Lipari case.

As anxieties about the constant collection of data arise, “the NSA continues to justify its massive data collections by stressing that the majority of the data is only collected and never used” (Witte, 14). What Facebook users might do upon reading this information is delete all the information they find on their profile they no longer want accessible to the public or government organization. However, information put on Facebook stays in their database even after it has been deleted. Countries other than the US have laws that allow citizens to access any information a given company has on them, including Facebook (Hoback, Terms and Conditions May Apply). An Austrian law student delved deeper into his own Facebook catalogue and found that “if you hit the remove button, it just means it’s flagged as deleted. So you hide it, actually, from yourself. But anyone, like Facebook or any Government Agency that wants to look at it later can still retrieve it and get it back” (Hoback, Terms and Conditions May Apply). Data and information put online lingers behind a screen that the general public can’t see. It waits for the opportunity to be used against you, otherwise why would government agencies feel the need to retain it? The consequences for trusting Mark Zuckerberg with, in essence, your whole life may be extremely detrimental, that is if you have something to hide.

Most could argue that they do not care their information is being harbored as they have nothing to hide. Zeynep Tufeki, Professor of Sociology at the University of Baltimore responds to this question saying, “You have nothing to hide, until you do. And you are not necessarily going to know what you have to hide or not” (Hoback, Terms and Conditions May Apply).

What Facebook really does, to the educated user, is manifest a sense of anxiety within society about never knowing what will be used against you. The information that is put on Facebook is etched in stone the moment you press Agree and Publish. The notion that there is a shred of privacy online contradicts Facebook’s whole purpose, to share information with others. Even now this technology has been valued as the most important database of information for the sole purpose of violating privacy in return for safety. But is this constant fear and anxiety really safe? It seems now that Facebook’s opaque privacy policy has turned transparent, displaying is complete lack of privacy for users.

Works Cited:

Willis, Lauren E.1, lauren.willis@lls.edu. “Why Not Privacy by Default?” Berkeley Technology Law Journal 29, no. 1 (Spring 2014): 61–134.

Witte, Derek S.1. “Privacy Deleted: Is It Too Late to Protect Our Privacy Online?” Journal of Internet Law 17, no. 7 (January 2014): 1–28.

Howles, Trudy, tmh@cs.rit.edu. “Data, Data Quality, and Ethical Use.” Software Quality Professional 16, no. 2 (March 2014): 4–12.

Facebook, Google, Yahoo Are Spying Tools. Interview. Accessed October 13, 2014. http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/assange-facebook-google-yahoo-spying-tools/.

Hoback, Cullen. Terms and Conditions May Apply. Documentary, 2013. http://www.netflix.com/WiMovie/70279201?trkid=13462100.

There is no greater motivation in this world quite like the promise of having a thicker wallet. Entertainment has arguably been at the forefront of this sentiment. Whether someone is a pop diva or an NFL running back, they all belong to something called the entertainment industry. The keyword there is “industry”. Although comparatively young in regards to sports and music, the video game industry has become wildly successful over the past decade. What started off as being nothing more than a specialized hobby has grown into a massive mainstream form of media. With triple-A video game releases even beating out Hollywood in terms of revenue there is clearly something they are doing right. Still, despite all of these impressive sales figures, inevitably greed will come into play. From creative business models to practically stealing from customers, the video game industry has undoubtedly affected modern business ethics both positively and negatively.

Perhaps it would be best to start off with the good. It is common knowledge by now that expanding your target market to be more inclusive will rake in bigger profits. While the console wars rage on between Sony’s Playstation and Microsoft’s Xbox, Steam remains practically unchallenged in the PC gaming market share. While Steam does rely on some exclusives such as Counterstrike and Dota 2, much of its success can be attributed to the large library of games that it provides from a myriad of different developers and publishers. Playstation, and more specifically, Xbox try to stay in the game by providing a number of other services such as Netflix and blue ray players in their machines. The Wii U trails far behind all three platforms due to its lack of third party developer support. Consoles may not necessarily be dead but PC elitism has grown over the past few years due to the number of titles Steam has accumulated over the years. Similar to how the Xbox 360 arguably won the console war several years back due to Playstation’s loss of certain exclusives (Final Fantasy and Grand Theft Auto to name a few), Steam may understandably win this war of platforms as they continue to forge alliances with dozens of other developers in order to cater to the many different kinds of gamers.

Speaking of PC gaming, World of Warcraft, although fallen in numbers, still remains the biggest MMORPG of all time. It once was able to claim a whopping 12 million players. How is all of this possible? It relied on subscriptions. Most video games at the time of its release were single products that had a one-time purchase and less reason to revisit the game once you were done. World of Warcraft’s formula offered more than just a product. It was also a service. Constant patches and add-ons convinced players that they were living in an ever-changing and ever-growing online world. Off course server maintenance and constant reworks would cost money, but they made all of it back through subscription fees. Blizzard had successfully created an IP that would last more than a decade and still go strong. Other companies needed to constantly innovate creating new products that could keep the company afloat or destroy them.

Trying to capitalize on Blizzard’s success, a number of other companies tried their stab at a big MMO release. Bioware’s The Old Republic appeared promising at first, but does not appear to have the longevity that World of Warcraft does. However, it still is far from being a failure by including an in-game store. People are quick to nay-say micro-transactions, but it is all about the manner in which they are implemented. The reason why micro-transactions and in-game stores are criticized is because of their encouragement of a pay-to-win model. This essentially means that people can pay to pass levels and not give the time or effort required to progress in the game. The Old Republic relies more on selling in-game items that offer no real gameplay rewards, but you can give your character a cool looking hat. There’s really nothing advantageous about a hat. Small purchases like this keep the game alive and running.

Wildstar, a new MMO on the scene, makes money from an even more far-fetched angle. Knowing that entering the MMO market is difficult, they came up with a formula that encourages its current subscribers to keep playing. They believe that there are essentially two different kinds of people that play their games. Person A is fine with paying subscriptions but does not have enough time to play in order to progress in the game. Person B has plenty of time but cannot keep playing because he/she is unable to keep up with the subscription fees. Wildstar allows person A and B to alleviate their problems. Person A can give some of the time purchased through his subscription to pay for some of person B’s hard-earned in-game currency/items. This is basically a trade between money and time. Person A gets the in-game items he/she needs to progress without having to dedicate their life to the game while person B gets the time needed to play longer. Interestingly enough, this is not the first time a video game company has let players trade directly between each other.

Eve Online has more than just a simply trade system. It has an entire living economy in its virtual space that players control and utilize with real money. The market inside this virtual reality is so complex that it has actual inflation and deflation rates for the in-game items being traded. Players themselves set prices and can make auctions at their own will. Very little is monitored in this in-game economy except for any “illegal” trades. Plume, a game journalist, describes the game as being its own “small country” even going into further detail about how players “speculate on commodities” while forming “trade coalitions and banks”. The amount of user power in this game is remarkable. There is virtually no middleman. At no point does the game developer itself step in to moderate trades. They give power to the people, and through this ideology they have secured the loyalty of their players ensuring that their IP will stay relevant in years to come.

Unfortunately not all video games are sunshine and rainbows in the way they handle their businesses. Let’s take a look at the most casual of games. Just about everyone with a smartphone has played or at least heard of a little something called Candy Crush saga. The entire game is just swiping candy in four directions trying to match colors. For anyone who has had a phone before the iphone era, this concept sounds a lot like bejeweled doesn’t it? The premise of the game has been around longer than most people believe in various different forms ranging from a Facebook equivalent to classic NES games. Despite being predated, King Digital, the creators of Candy Crush saga, made it their mission to sue every other game that was similar to theirs. Games that simply have the words “Candy” or even “saga” were not safe from the legal attacks by King Digital. Even more outraging is the way they make money off of their game. Players cannot go 1 minute without a shameless plead for more of the user’s money. Smosh Honest Game Trailers puts it best saying that players “are given options like paying to unlock new levels, paying for power-ups, paying to make more moves, paying for more lives and paying for the ability to pay for more lives”.

Corporate video game crimes do not end there. DLC, also known as downloadable content, has been greatly panned by fans and critics alike. These digital expansions have been accused of allowing the developers to market games with missing content to consumers and selling that same missing content as an “add-on”. I have to admit that this is a generalization and that some DLC expansions have earned the right to actually call themselves an expansion. The most blatant example of DLC abuse was with a game called Street Fight vs Tekken. This particular game actually came with the content on the disc but could only be accessed through a purchasable code. It’s like selling a book that was fully written but only selling half of it to their customers. Understandably, outrage spread through the community prompting the developer to review their DLC practices although no real action has taken place.

If selling your game in chopped up pieces one at a time to your customers was bad, selling an unfinished game to your customers is downright inexcusable. Steam, along with other publishers, have allowed players to partake in early beta tests to judge games that are still in development. The catch is that some beta tests actually require players to pay a fee. Gamers are not doing themselves a favor by paying to criticize unfinished games. This problem has extended to kickstarters. Games that began as kickstarter projects receive funding from hype that builds as they get closer to their release date. Not every game gets fully developed and some projects eventually get scrapped. While some kickstarters are legitimate, others abuse the mysteriousness of their projects reeling in consumers to sink their money into something that may not even be finished.

Sadly, even one of the most popular series, Halo, cannot escape the lure of becominga corporate sellout. The embarrassing alliance Halo 4 made would forever be the laughing stock of gamers everywhere. Halo 4 was at the forefront of the Doritos and Mountain Dew campaign at the time of its release. By buying Doritos and Mountain Dew gamers could level up faster than those who did not purchase their products. High profile game journalist Geoff Keighley was nothing more than a mere puppet promoting Doritos and Mountain Dew through Halo 4’s popularity. Capitalizing on an IP’s popularity can destroy a company’s integrity, and doing it so blatantly directly insults their customers.

More pressing than the Doritos incident is gaming journalism itself. Corruption always finds a way to snare its tendrils into the innocent. There has been great speculation about whether publishers have any power over those that review their games. GMU, a video game awards ceremony came under fire in 2012 when it was revealed that the journalists invited to the ceremony were voted for and sponsored by video game publishers. Journalists were encouraged to tweet positive statements about certain games. In return, they would get a free PS3. Joe Vargas, a youtuber specializing in video game reviews, describes the process as “favors for positive coverage”. Promotion through shady deals have become an increasing problem in the video game industry. Incidents such as this practically destroy the legitimacy of video game journalism all over the internet. It may be too soon to claim that all game journalism is bad, but the tensions between gamers, journalists and the puppet master publishers have not helped its image in the slightest.

It may be wrong to praise all of the business practices of the video game industry over the past years, but the events that have transpired have nonetheless become important lessons in business ethics as a whole. Each success and each folly have become a stepping stone further shaping what it means to be a good business. There is no shame in huge profits as long as they are earned by just means. The tales of the video game industry will undoubtedly transform the corporate world into something that both consumers and businessmen can rally behind.

Works Cited:

“Business Model.” Wildstar, n.d.http://www.wildstar-online.com/en/game/features/business-model/.

Candy Crush Saga (Honest Game Trailers), 2014.https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=candy+crush+criticism.

William, Volk. “Free-to-Play Games Are Having Their Soupy Sales Moment,” August 6, 2013.http://venturebeat.com/2013/08/16/free-to-play-games-are-having-their-soupy-sales-moment/.

How to Run a Successful Videogame Kickstarter, n.d.http://www.dorkly.com/post/66182/how-to-run-a-successful-videogame-kickstarter.

“League of Legends.” League of Legends, n.d.http://na.leagueoflegends.com/.

Phil, Owen. “No, Game Journalists Are Not Paid by Publishers for Review Scores,” July 28, 2013.http://www.gamefront.com/are-paid-by-game-publishers-for-review-scores-nope/.

“Steam.” Steam, n.d.http://store.steampowered.com/.

Brad, Gallaway. “The Consumer’s Seven Laws of DLC,” April 8, 2010.http://www.gamecritics.com/brad-gallaway/the-consumers-seven-laws-of-dlc.

Brad, Plumer. “The Economics of Video Games.” The Washington Post, September 28, 2012.http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/09/28/the-economics-of-video-games/.

“The Old Republic.” The Old Republic, n.d.http://www.starwarstheoldrepublic.com/.

Top 10 Gaming Controversies of 2012!, 2013.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54s_jyjMUxY.

“Top 10 Gaming Controversies of 2013!,” n.d.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voVpvKlntDM.

Kyle, Orland. “Valve Lets You Pay for the Beta with Steam ‘Early Access’ Program,” March 20, 2013.http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/03/valve-lets-you-pay-for-the-beta-with-steam-early-access-program/.

Tom, Chatfield. “Videogames Now Outperform Hollywood Movies.” The Guardian, September 26, 2009.http://www.theguardian.com/technology/gamesblog/2009/sep/27/videogames-hollywood.

“World of Warcraft.” World of Warcraft, n.d.http://us.battle.net/wow/en/.