Everyday, I hear a new 'evil thing' that Facebook is doing (again);
Selling your pictures!
Selling your information!
Using your location!
Analysing your history!
Well, first, yes it can, because
a) this is what it gets your permission for via Terms and Conditions and,
b) Facebook is not a charity and it has to do something to make profit and your data is its biggest asset to drive this and,
c) it is usually not something that as critical as you have been told!
And what surprises me is that Facebook is NOT creating those information or pics. YOU are putting everything there and YOU are responsible to protect your information. And, guess what, there is a way to protect it! Even though Facebook security and privacy panel has the same amount of buttons as a cockpit, it is now quite simple it to set everything with a single selection.
So, stop complaining, stop building up conspiracy theories and spend only 10 mins with your privacy and security settings.This doesn't mean restrict everything. I really mean spend time, think and then set your preferences.
Trust me, Facebook is good, if you use it properly.
Better yet: do not share anything on Facebook.
ReplyDeleteWhen you try to cancel your account with FB, you have to restrain yourself from logging in for at least a few weeks. Otherwise, all your information and previous settings get re-activated as if nothing has happened. Trust me, I've been through it!
I'm fine with sharing things, I think it's fun. It just needs a bit of attention with the privacy settings.
ReplyDeleteI have to say that I actually disagree with your argument. What you're saying is that the responsibility for finding out how the privacy settings work and that they are tailored correctly falls solely on the customer, regardless of his or her "tech literacy", and that the default option should be "full public disclosure".
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry but I just don't buy it. First of all, "Terms and Conditions" has become the instrument of choice to have clients to agree to what they don't even bother to read. Sure, lawyers might argue that their "clients" cannot be held liable for their customers being lazy, but come on! Who has seriously read 100% of the terms and conditions of anything? And even then, who is able to understand 100% of what it says and its implications? It seems like the modern world requires me to get legal advisory to use my iPod or my PS3 and even use any kind of on-line application.
And then there's the issue of privacy settings. I have to say that things are not clear enough. Sure, you and I are well versed in technology and know how to tinker with them until we get them just right, but I'm afraid that we're probably in the 1%. Things should be simple enough as to ensure that even grandma can set her account without having to bug her grandsons.
Of course, it's not just FB. Many others use the same kinds of techniques. To be honest, I feel like they play a game where they make things just sufficiently possible for "geeks" to be able to do what they want (hence show that it is indeed possible), but confusing enough to ensure that the bulk of the population falls into the trap (from the people who brought you "If you do not dislike not receiving promotional material do not untick this box") and when things take a turn for the worse just hide under the shield of "you accepted the 40 pages of the T&Cs".
The default option cannot be "share everything and then fiddle around to opt out".
I don't think that the default should be private in a site developed for sharing and networking; that would conflict with the purpose of the site. You are there to share and read what people share. But your point is fair about the T&Cs are never read however you really don't have to. My point is users have to be a bit more careful before blaming the sites. At the end of the date, my drunk photo crawling on the sidewalk is there because I put it(or let it to be) there. For example, when posting it clearly states that if your posts are public or your friends or your friends friends etc. When it is stated that clear, you can't blame Facebook or others.. And about the settings, I'm sure your grandma can do it too. They made default settings for Public, Friends or Private..Single click, done. Also the other settings are not written in techy language. For example it says "Do you want somebody else to tag you in a photo without your permission"..No, done. These are really easy but one has to go there and read for 5 mins, maybe 3..not click next, next, next....
DeleteThing is that the default option is "share with everyone" not share with your friends or share with friends and friends of friends.
DeleteLet me give you few examples of how things can get confusing so easily. Today I've been pulling a friend's leg the whole day because on his wall there is a notice from Yahoo saying that he read an article about Jennifer Lopez's pictures without photoshop. Now, even though I have to be grateful that I have material to make fun of him for many days, he's a bit shocked that this happened and doesn't quite know how to fix it. We're talking about a 30 year old professional with a Master's degree. Apparently smart enough to get top honours at an European university but not to do the fine tuning of his FB privacy settings.
The other day I wanted to read something that someone had posted though "the Guardian" app but I needed to enable the app. Privacy settings were so murky that I decided to forget about it.
I had to help my wife the other day changing her settings because people were tagging her in pictures without her authorization.
These of course are not isolated incidents. For instance see http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2011/11/facebook-and-privacy . I particularly like the paragraph where it says "In the past, the company often introduced changes that made more data public by default, forcing people to “opt out” in order to keep their information private."
This is a discussion that actually goes beyond internet applications. It deals with the information that companies have to provide to their customers up front regarding possible "negative effects". The reason why big tobacco companies were sued and had to pay millions in compensation in the 90s (if I remember correctly) was not because their products killed people. It was because they did not inform their customers that their products could kill as they should have (and actually withheld information about this). Sure, for most of the people it seems obvious that smoking is not very healthy, but what the courts found was that it was not the responsibility of the customer to do the research about the health hazards but of the company to inform.
Not that using FB is going to prove to be a killer like smoking, but the principle is the same. It is up to the company to clearly and explicitly (and not through a 50 page T&C document) inform its customers of the information that is being shared by default. If this is not possible then the default setting should be more "conservative", allowing people to opt in instead.
It's not that surprising that the default option is set to share. As a 'program' facebook's basic purpose is to share photos and experiences with other people.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time, as my learned friend writes in his pieces, your participation in this program is completely voluntary. It starts with "you".
A friend of mine who's doing the PhD in law just posted this on FB which seemed quite appropriate: "If what you are getting online is for free, you are not the customer, you are the product. -Jonathan Zittrain, professor of Internet law"
ReplyDelete