Is Facebook ‘Like’-able?
Joe Lipari, a well-known American comedian took to 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). The authorities flagged the status and Lipari’s address was immediately retrieved prompting the instantaneous search of his apartment. Only after the fact did Lipari realize that this was in response to his aggressive Facebook status. This begs the question of personal privacy on the Internet.
The trust that we put on the Internet to protect our privacy should be diminishing as it is clear social media sites, most notably Facebook, do not have our best interest at heart. The continual breech of privacy is a sign that we are headed for a doom where there is no longer a notion of privacy. Users should not trust the Internet, and in an ideal situation not sign up for any form of social media for personal protection. 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.
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. Trudy Howles, 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). Upon the realization that personal data was being collected, I was strongly opposed as I had only intended for my information, pictures, and conversations to be shared with my friends. The mere motive to collect this data and store it implies a desire to use this information for an ulterior reason to why it was put online in the first place. The reason for data collection was one I was not even aware I was agreeing to until today, which makes me question if I would have even signed up for Facebook with this knowledge 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). My lack of trust with the Internet continues to diminish as more and more privacy violations surface through deeper research. For me, this is a worse case scenario as a Facebook user. Knowing the information is being harbored and not guaranteeing its security should be a red flag for any Facebook user. It seems to be a clear violation of privacy to use this information for reasons other than connecting with people, which is Facebook’s main goal.
In its current Privacy Policy, Facebook promises law enforcement that they will respond to requests seeking information on any given profile in its database. Facebook’s 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). It seems hard to believe that Facebook could deny access to a strong government organization. Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks notes, “US Intelligence is able to bring legal and political pressure to Facebook”(Assange, Russia Today). As I dig deeper into the whole of Internet privacy the consequences of posting any information online seem much grater than the benefits. Now information is at risk of being accessed by any law enforcement or government organization. I would persuade readers to absorb this information and truly caution how you use Facebook.
I, among other users, was under the assumption that Facebook privacy settings could be altered to take full control on our online privacy. I felt that each aspect of the profile could be adjusted to my comfort level, which is totally private to people I am not friends with. 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, Danah 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 is the true danger of Facebook in the first place. Before the rise of this social media site no one had thought to share this kind of private information about ones self until it became popularized by the website. Our sense of the need for privacy is being washed away as it now becomes acceptable to publicize information so freely without understanding the consequences.
Do you want “Everyone” to be able to see your Facebook posts? Didn’t think so.
Trusting Facebook with your information brings consequences that allow Facebook to take control of not only personal information but also personal being. In 2012 Facebook conducted a study that altered the content in news feeds to see whether different content would affect the emotional state of a Facebook user. This study caused tremendous backlash as Facebook was “deliberately manipulating emotions”, causing, in some sense, psychological damage (Dredge, The Guardian). Facebook specifically and maliciously altered the emotions of users, a very intrusive exploit. Sentiments of this intrusive study are echoed by “Jim Sheridan, a member of the Commons media select committee” who worries about “the ability of Facebook to manipulate people’s thoughts [in] other areas” outside of emotional attitudes (Booth, The Guardian). The fact that Facebook can make that large of an impact on a user is very concerning. Not only is Facebook now able to use personal information but also now my emotions are dictated by my Facebook news feed. Regardless if Facebook had notified me of this study, this brings to light the power Facebook has. The site is able to change the way I am feeling thus commanding my day-to-day life which is now controlled by a social media website.
Julian Assange believes that “Facebook in particular is the most appalling spying machine that has ever been invented”, and he is right (Assange, Russia Today). Assange’s assumptions coincide with the US department of homeland security’s statement that “Facebook has replaced almost every other CIA information gathering program since it was launched in 2004” (Hoback, Terms and Conditions May Apply). Christopher Startinsky, the Deputy Director of the CIA, claims that the widespread nature of Facebook “is truly a dream come true for the CIA… after years of secretly monitoring the public”; this information is voluntarily made accessible”(Hoback, Terms and Conditions May Apply). Not only does this bring to light that even before Facebook the CIA was digging up details about civilians but that the CIA is actually delighted in the fact our information is so easily accessible. It brings them pleasure to see how naïve civilians set their privacy at their doorstep to be used freely.
This has created a great sense of inner anxiety within myself, the thought of being constantly watched, in a malicious sense, is a sense that is mimicked by the US supreme court as they “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). Even though the NSA claims they collect this data because it could be relevant to a terrorism investigation at some point in time” this preventative clause gives them one foot in the door (Witte, 13). With even preliminary access there is no telling what information they will dig deeper for, seen in the Joe Lipari case.
their database even after it has been deleted. An Austrian law student took advantage of a law that allow citizens to access any information a given company has on them, including Facebook (Hoback, Terms and Conditions May Apply). The 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). The data and information that I have put online lingers behind a screen that I cannot see waiting to be used to “prevent terrorism”. It waits for the opportunity to be used against you, otherwise why would government agencies feel the need to retain it?
I could argue that I do not care my personal life and personal information is being harbored, as I have nothing to hide. However, 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 is needed is a call to action for advanced Facebook and Internet privacy awareness. The information that we voluntarily put on Facebook is etched in stone the moment it is published. Belief in cyber privacy is fostering a greater trust in the invisible sphere of the Internet, despite acts of privacy violation around us. The recent iCloud hacking, exposing countless nude photos of female celebrities, and Snapchat hacking are proof that web content is an open target. The notion that there is a shred of privacy online contradicts Facebook’s whole purpose, to share information with others. In our technologically dependent world the reality that our whole lives will be online is a viable future. The doom that lies ahead is a society reliant on a technology that harbors our information, manipulates our emotions and gives away all of this data, relinquishing any shreds of privacy we thought we had left.
Works Cited:
Willis, Lauren. “Why Not Privacy by Default?” Berkeley Technology Law Journal 29, no. 1 (Spring 2014): 61–134.
Witte, Derek. “Privacy Deleted: Is It Too Late to Protect Our Privacy Online?” Journal of Internet Law 17, no. 7 (January 2014): 1–28.
Howles, Trudy. “Data, Data Quality, and Ethical Use.” Software Quality Professional 16, no. 2 (March 2014): 4–12.
Assange, Julian. Interviewed by Laura Emmet. “Facebook, Google, Yahoo Are Spying Tools” Russia Today, 2011. Web. 15 Mar. 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.
Dredge, Stuart. “How Does Facebook Decide What to Show in My News Feed?” The Guardian, June 30, 2014, sec. Technology. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/30/facebook-news-feed-filters-emotion-study.
Arthur, Charles. “Facebook Emotion Study Breached Ethical Guidelines, Researchers Say.” The Guardian, June 30, 2014, sec. Technology. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/30/facebook-emotion-study-breached-ethical-guidelines-researchers-say.