The tech world is constantly evolving. We are always finding new ways to communicate. Social media is gigantic right now. Interconnecting websites allows for a more personalized experience. Where, in this mix, does privacy fit in?
Facebook is the target of such a question tonight. Facebook has been hosting F8 [read: fate]. it is at F8 that Facebook told us that Facebook Connect, the feature that allows you to log into countless sites with your Facebook credentials, will be no more. Replacing that is the "like" function. Using like, you will be given the opportunity to not only log into a site with your Facebook name but also customize your experience based on the things you say on Facebook. Remember that last part for a moment.
Another highly touted, yet controversial new feature (touted by Facebook, controversial by its users) is "Instant Personalization." As of right now, there are only a few select partners (Docs.com by Microsoft, Yelp and Pandora) which were chosen carefully to test this functionality. With the old Facebook Connect, a user had to log in with the Facebook credentials. Until that point, everyone surfed in what they believed was relative anonymity. What most people don't realize is that for several years now, cookies have been tools of behavioral advertisers to track where we went in order to provide customize content or targeted ads. This is nothing new. It was just under the surface and you didn't know it was happening. Didn't you think it was strange you never (or rarely) got ads for things you have no interest in, yet advertisers always somehow showed you ads for all of your hobbies?
With the advent of Instant Personalization, the moment you arrive at Pandora it will see a comment you made about, let's say, The Beatles and start playing a Beatles song or something it deems similar. It does all of this using things you've posted in your public timeline. Also, remember THAT last statement as well.
Now you can get customized content from these three reputable sources immediately without even logging in. Why search around on a site for what you're looking for when it can automatically and immediately deliver it to you?
Back to the two statements you were supposed to remember. 1) Using the things you say on Facebook and 2) using things you've posted on your public timeline. That's right. You said it and you did so publicly. There is no infringement of privacy here. You may think Facebook is stealing the innermost secrets of your life and selling them to the highest bidder. Here's the real truth though - you entered a social networking site, posted a comment on a public wall for the world to see, did not chose to make it private and Facebook is using that to help other sites customize your experience with content made specifically for you.
If anyone is wondering how they are doing this or is in outrage over it, you need to rethink the steps you went through to make this happen. Facebook, by its very nature is not private. They are not reading emails. They are no tapping phones. They are not intercepting text messages. They are using information you specifically chose to put in the most public of places. They are also open and up front about it. They announced it to the entire tech media industry.
Now… you CAN opt-out of this and go back to seeing vanilla content and sifting through countless pages of irrelevant data if you want. You can also privately post on the public wall (and then you can read your own stuff but nobody else can). You can tailor who sees what you post if you want to go through the effort. You can't complain when you scream something from the virtual rooftops and people hear you though.
And before you worry about if you could complain, you may want to stop and think if you should. You said you liked the Yankees, Jennifer Aniston, Playstation and the iPhone so you see (first) items with relevance to that. Is that a problem or is it just helpful?
Comments
balderdash! -- The reason people are outraged is that facebook set everyone to automatically be a part of this "Instant Personalization" instead of allowing us to decide. It's all about the money -- and we have a right as users to be upset when our privacy is violated for the purposes of making more money.
One critical note here is that now certain aspects of these sites which were previously private are now public.
I use my Facebook account for two reasons: 1) keeping tabs on the goings-on of my friends and family, and 2) mindless social games. I wasn’t even aware of this Instant Personalization stuff until an acquaintance of mine started asking me rather pointed questions about my taste in music. What I didn’t know was that because of our connection on Facebook, he could now see my entire list of stations in Pandora, including ones I’ve long since deleted.
I never made that information public. I never posted it to my timeline. I never “liked” it. Hell, I didn’t even know there *was* a Pandora app for Facebook – I strictly use it on my iPhone.
THAT was the invasion of privacy. If I didn’t rely on Facebook for family connections I would deleted my account on the spot. As it stands, I’m looking for options. The decision to automatically enroll everyone in this program goes too f
Aaron, In your case, Pandora went to Facebook. That's not Facebook releasing privacy information to the world.
Everyone may want to look up the Privacy Act of 1974 before judging what is deemed private and what is not.
Austinite, It's making public information YOU already made public on your own.
Why doesn't anyone see the logic here?
I'm actually in the midst of creating a social network of my own; one that focuses of getting people together through common interests.
To me, it's all about facilitating the needs of the potential users. And one of the offerings that i have been working on, is a system that would allow only relevant information to be displayed to the audience. The only matter of concern, at this given point of time, is how best to obtain the information, and how to present it. As much as i feel that the "Like" function on Facebook is really useful, the fact remains that as the company that manages such (possibly sensitive) information, Facebook could and should have done a better job in bringing it to the people.
Sorry i meant "focuses on**"
The big problem with your so called public wall argument is that my wall is not public, it's set for friends only. Some of my posts are even for a certain sub set of friends (I exclude those posts by list). If I don't want the world, or even a certain sub set of friends reading what I post, I certainly don't want Pandora, Yelp or Microsoft Docs reading it either. And I find the Pandora and Yelp experience just fine without the privacy invasion.
Ok Jason, but Facebook still shared my real name and contact list with Pandora. Not just who I am, but who I know, what I’ve said, etc – a full on record of activities within the walled garden of my controlled, limited, restricted public network. Pandora would never have been able to share that information about my listening habits with my contacts, without my foreknowledge or prior consent, had Facebook not decided to share the layout of my social network with them in the first place.
But you're right, both of them are to blame here: Facebook enabled Pandora, and Pandora shared information I never intended to become “public.”
Regarding the Privacy Act, my understanding is that only applies to federal agencies. I don’t see how that applies here … Also, an Act written 4 years before even the establishment of USENET would hardly be my first go-to resource to backup arguments on a modern judgment on privacy.
Perhaps people will be willing to pay for a social networking site that truly restricts the sharing of posts and other information to those the subscriber chooses to share it with.
Facebook can't fund its insane growth without revenue streams. In a tight economy the temptation to take information we've placed on their servers and share it with paying customers is even higher than normal. Anyone who is surprised that people oversell products (I believed them when they said I would be sharing thoughts and proclivities only with those I accepted as friends) has limited knowledge of human nature - especially that of the ambitious.
The more these arguments over privacy take place, the more we'll hear the argument that people with nothing to hide have no need for privacy. Because it is such a logical argument, the privacy advocates will not prevail in the long run. Privacy will be for those who can afford to protect their own.
Shawn. I'm interested in this new social network. I don't know how close to launch you are or what you have yet to do. Email me at jason@jayvigmedia.com if you're willing to discuss ways to gain traction. I may be able to help.
Has anyone read the ToS for Facebook or other social networking sites? The minute you sign up you agree to individual items about what you post. If it is in their ToS and you agreed... then you agreed. Is it right (morally/ethically)? Not really. Legally? Different story.
You CAN always leave Facebook. You leave a restaurant that doesn't meet your needs. You don't shop places that don't have what you want. Leave Facebook. Sharing of information is here to stay. Actually, it is only in its infancy. Right or wrong, get used to this. It's going to happen. That is the intent of social media. To connected everyone and everything to each other.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!