Privacy violations and user behavior on Facebook and Twitter

Social Networking Privacy

Online privacy has been a prominent topic around the modern world since the Internet came to prominence. However, with the advent of social sites and networks like Facebook, Twitter and the like, the amount of horror stories, privacy violations and very misadvised user behavior has skyrocketed exponentially. People that have been victimized, either by bad security policies or by users' own silly or stupid behavior, range from average everyday people to prominent national figures such as executives and politicians. The companies behind social networks do have a duty to close and prevent security holes and lapses but users need to arm themselves as well. The internet is a vast echo chamber that spans the entire world. Once certain things are done or said online, it is difficult to impossible to undo the damage that has been done. As such, users need to very careful of what they themselves do as well as watching out for con artists that will victimize and/or embarrass them without a second thought.

Social Networking Privacy

The internet, as a usable tool for the public at large around the world, has not been on the forefront of world culture for all that long. Indeed, as recently as the early 1990's, the internet was not widely used by the average person. Since then, however, that has changed drastically. The World Wide Web came first and literally changed the way we exchange information, talk to each other, connect with each other, shop for consumer goods online, as well as many other activities.

There were certainly dangers relating to identity theft and viruses, but those dangers pale in comparison to what is possible now given the advent of social media sites like Facebook and Twitter. Research quite easily bears out that social networking sites are not always the best at protecting their users and users are often very shoddy at protecting themselves, either assuming that the companies whose software they are using will protect them or they are simply ignorant and uninformed as to what can truly go wrong given a moment of indiscretion.

Online Retailers & Advertising

There is a wide array of different events and implications that have been raised by social networking. One example is the use of social networking by retailers. Many consumers embrace retailers marketing to them through social networking and other online mediums while others are very skeptical and suspicious. Some users are also extremely averse to online advertising in general even though it is a common tool used by social networking sites to offset or eliminate the cost to the users themselves (Tang, Hu & Smith, 2008). Questions as to the apparent willingness of users to undergo this have been posed (Awad & Krishnan, 2006). Research bears out that retailers are not the big evil entity that many special interest groups make them out to be but users can protect themselves with software tools and personal tactics if they are concerned about their privacy as it relates to online retailers.

In a similar vein, Facebook has caught a lot of heat for trying to monetize its user data by selling it to advertisers and/or allowing advertisers to use user data to market particular ads based on what is in a user's profile (Lyons, 2012). Many people have characterized this and any other similar behavior as a "march" against privacy (Rethlefsen, 2010). Others have preached about how companies have a modicum of social responsibility as they work online (Pollach, 2011). Standards have been proposed that would hold advertisers to certain standards and prevent them from engaging in certain behaviors (Stanaland, May & Miyazaki, 2011). Again, users can protect themselves and research bears out that there is nothing insidious about retailers trying to make sales. Users have ways to protect themselves but if they are too disengaged or lazy to arm themselves, that is not the fault of the retailers. At the end of the day, no one makes an internet user buy an iPod.

Civil & Criminal Implications

Another broad implication that has had a lot of people talking is the use of public visibility settings by government and law enforcement agencies as well as users going to court of social networking sites like Facebook (Semitsu, 2011). One example of this in action would be a law enforcement agency using a public Facebook post to locate a fugitive or finger someone for a crime that is being investigated. Another example would be a party in a civil lawsuit claiming harassment using screen captures of Facebook posts by the accused party (Sun, Hichang, & Sanchez, 2009). On this topic, research bears out that law enforcement agencies and other entities conducting legal research are just using the tools and tactics legally made available to them by social media and the aloofness of the people that these agencies and people are seeking out. Unless or until the agencies or other entities are using illegal means to accomplish their tasks, they are not doing anything illegal or unethical. They are just being opportunistic and they have an obvious motivation to be that way.

Social Media Company Lapses

The overall verdict from courts regarding Facebook and Twitter has not always been positive for those companies. Many courts have assailed Facebook for improperly exposing private information of its users and/or not allowing users to effectively management the visibility of their online data (Cortland, 2012). Research bears out that users are often responsible for over-revealing their personal information and that is no fault of Twitter or Facebook. if, however, these companies expose information improperly, they should indeed be held accountable.

Student Use of Social Media

College is a huge breeding ground for abuse and misuse of social media given the very social nature of a typical college campus. Indeed, several studies have been done that specifically look at social media use on campus. One study found that ninety-six percent of students responding to the survey had a Facebook account (Garner & O'Sullivan, 2010). A study of pharmacy students found that many of them were in groups with very explicit names or content pieces on their "walls" (Williams, Field & James, 2011). The universities themselves have also been targets of derision due to data being compromised online (Culnan & Carlin, 2009).

Heavy use of Facebook is of no surprise to anyone keeping track but the anecdote about the pharmacy students is telling. This is yet another instance of users making use of social media without either not knowing or not caring about the conclusions that others may draw about what is appearing on their "walls" or the people they associate with. Some may view such review of people's Facebook activity as unethical or unfair but research bears out that there is no doubt that it happens every day and all of the time.

Political Implications

While use of social media sites is taken for granted in places like the United Kingdom and the United States, it is a whole different story in areas Iran and China, where the Internet and all of its faculties including social media are censored, banned, or otherwise controlled. Social media was widely used during the recent revolution in Egypt but the results have been much more mixed in areas such as Iran where it is hard to tell what is truly going on due to the oppressive amount of government control (Morozov, 2009).

Many of the alarmist talk that occurs in academic journals and news services can be dismissed as unreasonable or untrue. However, if one knows what is truly going on around the world, the picture is much clearer regarding areas like China and the Middle East at large. Social media frameworks mean so much more to people in those oppressive regimes as one can easily tell when reading research on the matter.

Children's Use of Social Media

While many researchers and pundits bristle at the automatic presumptions that corporations and retailers are acting in an evil fashion or that users are aloof idiots, there is little confusion or divergence with most people about protecting minor children online. Research bears out that there are very legitimate concerns about the safety of children online. The question as to whether or how much children should even be using social media is a question that is often raised. Parents who are ignorant or ambivalent about what their children are doing on social media networks are either condemned or placated depending on the motive of the people doing the talking (Nolan, Raynes-Goldie, & McBride, 2011).

However, even if someone argues that publicly data and people are fair game, research confirms that involving children and child predators in the mix changes everything. Questions about autonomy and safety shift from black and white to shades of gray or vice versa (Nolan, Raynes-Goldie, & McBride, 2011). Even with the media and public's inherent tendency to protect children, this issue is not black and white either. Many argue that children should be allowed to use social media without fear while others argue that acting under this presumption and allowing children free reign borders on child negligence because of what could happen (Nolan, Raynes-Goldie, & McBride, 2011).

Review of Research

The research to be found on the topic of social media as it relates to user privacy is very mixed. The main reason for that is likely because analysis of the topic is less qualitative and more quantitative. Also, it is almost impossible to analyze the topic without at least some preconceived notions or opinions. There are two very distinct ways of looking at the subject. The first is that privacy should rule the day and that even legal appropriation of publicly available information is improper. The other camp would argue that unless user accounts have been compromised or innocent children are being impacted, or something else of that nature, then nothing incendiary is going on.

Perhaps the only analysis that occurs that is truly "above it all" is research that just recites things as they happen and readers are left to form their own opinion and undertake their own action plan. It is hard to be more definitive given the inherently subjective nature of the topic at hand as many people, including researchers and people who are ostensibly supposed to be neutral, will allow their politics and preconceptions to color their research and analysis. It is hard to find an answer to a question, after all, when one has the desired answer figured out in advance of trying to "answer" the question of whether social media privacy is a true concern.

A sterling example of when research quite obviously turns into social activism is illustrated quite clearly in an article that was found during the research for this report that bemoaned the fact that user resistance is not what it "should be" and that people needed to rise up against social media entities encroaching on privacy (Huey, 2010). This work appeared in a scholarly reviewed journal that relates to international law. The author behind this work obviously has the right to print and publish this work but to say that this work is scholarly is a bit of a stretch. The article is urging a political and social movement and that is not in any way the aim of scholarly research.

That all being said, there are two conclusions that one can draw based on the research data available. The first is that many parties exist in the world that will use social media data without a second thought. Some of these people's motives are insidious while others are innocuous. However, they most certainly do exist and they will probably not alter their behavior anytime soon. Retailers will use consumer data to market their products, law enforcement and similar entities will use data to pursue criminals and potential parties to a lawsuit and employers will "check up" on their employees and prospective hires.

This leads to the other conclusion that should be drawn from the research. Users must be extremely careful how they proceed with social media. They should think long and hard about what they reveal online, who they associate with and what they do on these social media sites. The reasons for this are quite obvious based on what the research displays. Disastrous or at least embarrassing things can happen to people that behave carelessly online and this is just as true for regular citizens as it is for public figures. Regardless of the cacophony of pro-privacy advocate voices that resonate in the public and media spheres, the reality of the situation needs to be called what it is and people who use social media need to react accordingly.

Conclusion

At the end of the day, users need to protect themselves. It should not be assumed that social media companies will protect all their users from all conceivable outcomes. Personal accountability and self-control online are things that all users need to possess. That being said, social media companies need to do their due diligence as well. Allowing users to engage in a free-for-all is not a solution and will inevitably lead to chaos. Politicians need to be careful as well. Users engaging in stupid or ill-advised behavior need to understand that they are not protected from consequences as social media sites do not have the time or the resources to babysit their users. If something illegal is happening, then they should absolutely step in and cooperate with authorities. However, the censoring and policing of "improper" content is not right unless it's illegal. Infringing on free speech is unethical and often illegal to do.

References (all of these came from EBSCOHost)

Awan, N. & Krishnan, M.. (2012). The Personal Privacy Paradox. MIS Quarterly. 30 (1),

13-28.

Collins, J. (2010). Fortify Your Facebook Settings. Journal of Accountancy. 209 (6), 42-

45.

Cortland, a. (2012). Court Unlikes Claim of Facebook Privacy. Best's Review. 112 (10),

56.

Culnan, M. And Carlin T. (2009). Online Privacy Practices in Higher Education.

Communications of the ACM. 52 (3), 126-130.

Dvorak J.C. (2010). Why Facebook Privacy Settings Don't Matter. PC Magazine. 29 (7),

1.

Garner, J. & O'Sullivan H. (2010). Facebook and the Professional Behaviours of Undergraduate Medical Students. The Clinical Teacher. 7 (2), 112-115.

Goodyear, D.. (2010). Friends Like These. New Yorker. 86 (16), 22-23.

Griffith, R. & Tengnah, C. (2011). District Nurses' Use of Social Networking Sites:

Caution Required. British Journal of Community Nursing. 16 (9), 455-457.

Houn-Gee, C., Chen, C., Lo, L., & Yang, S. (2012). Online Privacy Control via Anonymity & Pseudonym. Behaviour & Information Technology. 27 (3), 229-242.

Huey, L. (2012). A Social Movement fo Privacy/Against Surveillance?. Case Western

Reserve Journal of International Law. 42 (3), 699-709.

Lyons, D. (2010). The High Price of Facebook. Newsweek. 155 (21-22), 22.

Kranich, N. (2007). Librarians and Teen Privacy in the Age of Social Networking.

Knowledge Quest. 36 (2), 34-37.

Morozov, E. (2009). Iran: Downside to the Twitter Revolution. Dissent. 56 (4), 10.

Nolan J, Raynes-Goldie, K & McBride M. (2011). The Stranger Danger: Exploring

Surveillance, Autonomy & Privacy in Children's Use of Social Media. Canadian Children. 36 (2), 24-32.

O'Bein, D & Torres, a. (2012). Social Networking & Online Privacy: Facebook Users'

Perceptions. Irish Journal of Management. 31 (2), 63-97.

Pollach, I. (2011). Business Ethics: A European Review. Business Ethics. 20 (1), 88-

Randall, C. (2012). Delaware Bill Would Protect Social Media Privacy. Associated Press. 11 (1), 1.

Rethlefsen, M.L. (2012). Tools at Work: Facebook's March on Privacy. Library Journal.

135 (12), 34-35.

Sangani, K. (2012). Who Owns Your Personal Data. Engineering & Technology. 5 (11),

28-29.

Semitsu, J.P. (2012). From Facebook to Mug Shot. Pace Law Review. 31 (1), 291-381.

Stanaland, a., May, O., & Miyazaki, a. . (2011). Online Privacy Trustmarks. Journal of Advertising. 51 (3), 511-523

Sun Sun, L., Hichang, C., & Sanchez, M. (2009). Online Privacy, Goverment

Surveillance and National ID Cards. Communications of the ACM. 52 (12), 116-

Tang, Z., Hu, Y., and Smith, M. (2008). Gaining Trust Through Online Privacy

Protection: Self-Regulation, Mandatory Standards or Caveat Emptor. Journal of Management Information Systems. 24 (4), 153-173.

Williams, J., Feild, C. & James, K. (2011). The Effects of a Social Media Policy on Pharmacy Students' Facebook Security Settings. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education. 75 (9), 1-6.