iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Jeffrey Evans

GET UPDATES FROM Jeffrey Evans
 

If Only Irony Had a Privacy Setting

Posted: 09/07/10 11:22 PM ET

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg is worried about his privacy. You may want to re-read that sentence to be sure it didn't say "isn't worried." It would certainly make a lot more sense if the face of Facebook said he wasn't concerned about privacy, but just the opposite is happening. Zuckerberg says intimate details of his life are primed to be leaked to the world and has directed his legal team not to let that happen. Zuckerberg is fighting a lawsuit from Paul Ceglia, who in pursuit of his claim to an ownership stake in Facebook, is demanding access to some of Zuckerberg's personal files. http://bit.ly/djjWOn

Of course, in light of how Facebook's privacy policy affects its estimated 500 million users, Zuckerberg being worried about his privacy is a bit like Simon Cowell complaining about the critics bashing his new show... or Barry Bonds calling Roger Clemens a cheater... or the producers of Lost saying the Sopranos ended poorly. Facebook is the very company that decided to change its privacy setting earlier this year, making public what had once been private. Now, it would truly be ironic if the courts told the Facebook founder that his personal files were once protected, but not any more... whoops, sorry!!!

Not yet sure how this affects you? Well, let me introduce you to Kimberly Swann, an entry-level staffer at a marketing company in England. Ms. Swann was just 16 when she got fired after posting a Facebook status update complaining to her "friends" that her job was boring. How many times have you described your job in less than flattering terms to friends?

When I tell people of the privacy risks to the average social media user, I often encounter skepticism. People don't think they need to worry because they are not posting any compromising information on themselves to their own Facebook or MySpace profiles. They are missing the point. If you post it online it will live indefinitely and can easily be taken out of contex and used against you.

Let me tell you the story of Stacy Snyder. In 2006, Snyder was a 25-year-old student working toward her teaching degree. She went to a costume party one night dressed as a pirate and someone took a picture of her holding a plastic cup. We have no idea what was in the cup, but the picture was posted on MySpace with the caption, "Drunken Pirate." - http://bit.ly/abfj13

When a link to this photo hit the inbox in the front office of Millersville University, the school's leadership kicked Ms. Snyder out of school and refused to grant her a diploma, saying she was promoting underage drinking. We have one less teacher in America because of a photo taken of a 25 year old woman in a pirate's hat. Ms. Snyder had not violated any law. It is impossible to judge from the photo if she had even been drinking alcohol, let alone if she was intoxicated when the photo was taken, and she certainly had not posted anything compromising about herself that justified the action her school took against her. She had simply gone to a friend's costume party. Social media and snap judgments did the rest.

This doesn't only happen to teens and young adults. Dr. June Talvitie-Siple was a teacher for more than 30 years in Cohasset school district outside of Boston. She supervised the science and math programs at the school. One day, Dr. Talvitie-Siple was frustrated at some local parents and updated her Facebook status to indicate she was sick of "arrogant and snobby" parents in Cohasset. She did not realize her Facebook privacy setting allowed her status updates to be made public. She thought Facebook would keep her comments private, shared only with her friends. She thought Facebook's default setting was "safe."

She was wrong, and it cost her her job.

Recent surveys indicate that seventy-five percent of Human Resource professionals use online searches to vet applicants. Eight percent of US companies fired an employee in 2009 because of their social media activity. According to Careerbuilder, forty-five percent of companies did social network searches when making hiring decisions in 2009 . When hiring and firing decisions hinge in any way on status updates and third-party social media sources like the caption of a photograph, it should give pause to anyone who thinks that they are squeaky clean enough not to dig deeper than default social media settings to secure their own digital privacy.

We need to insist on impermanence -- settings that allow messages and postings to disappear after a prescribed amount of time, whether that be hours, days or months. What I say and is said about me on Facebook and other social media sites needs to be confined to my network, not available to anyone interested enough to type my name into a search engine.

If only Marc Zuckerberg would devote the same energy to protecting the rights of his 500 million users that he is expending to protect his own privacy.


Jeffrey Evans is the CEO of TigerText, a text messaging service that offers and promotes increased privacy standards in communication.

 

Follow Jeffrey Evans on Twitter: www.twitter.com/YourPrivacy

 
 
  • Comments
  • 21
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
09:00 PM on 09/11/2010
I am not comfortable using Facebook. I don't like ridicule, who does? And so I prefer anonymity.
05:29 PM on 09/10/2010
What's annoying about the privacy issue is that who know to keep things private either don't update their friends via social networks or it becomes some bland portion of the truth - e.g. "I had a bad day" vs. "Holy Crap! My employer just fired me for because I drink."

As for the comment, "We need to insist on impermanence -- settings that allow messages and postings to disappear after a prescribed amount of time, whether that be hours, days or months." - I disagree, I think that what we need is a better system. Your posts are sort of a diary, a history of your life. What should occur is a better control over who sees them.

"What I say and is said about me on Facebook and other social media sites needs to be confined to my network, not available to anyone interested enough to type my name into a search engine." - 100% agreed! I know I'm not alone when that's what I want.

With all these issues (and a few more), I've decided to take matters into my own hands and am creating http://www.JustaFewofUs.com - a social network where privacy is the main concern and I have full control over who sees what I post.

Thanks for the article, Jeff. I love ironic stories.
08:21 PM on 09/08/2010
I totally agree protecting your privacy is of paramount importance
04:56 PM on 09/08/2010
BRAVO!
02:49 PM on 09/08/2010
Excellent and insightful article on the increasing importance of privacy in an increasingly exposed digital world.
12:32 PM on 09/08/2010
While privacy settings on FB and other social media are certainly a concern - as is the growing lack of privacy rights in the US - part of the problem is personal responsibility. At this point, everyone should know and understand the dangers of posting stuff online whether it's on FB, MySpace, Twitter, etc. We can't be all "FB is the devil" without realizing that we hand over the keys to the devil every day. Take control of your personal information. Be vigilant about your online presence. When posting online, don't post anything you wouldn't say to someone's face or be fine plastering on billboards across the country. That's a basic rule we ALL should have learned long ago.

Additionally, we need to take note of Germany's push to make an individual's online presence not applicable to his/her employability. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/25/germany-facebook-privacy-_n_693938.html

So, check your FB privacy settings and check yourself before you type and post. If a friend tags you in a questionable picture, untag yourself and/or ask the friend to take it down. A little personal responsibility goes a long way.
11:41 AM on 09/08/2010
There are two problems which meet in these "social" media. Problem one is that companies such as Facebook and Google have been riding the wave of anti-privacy as created by the Bush-Blair axis, and that is now creating a rebound which goes straight against their business model of, well, "creatively borrowing" your private information. Chapter 11 of Google's Terms of Service is worth reading in that context.

Problem two is actually us, and the law. The examples above are classic emotive judge and jury, without even the most basic evidence. This needs challenging at every possible opportunity. Repeat after me: someone is innocent until proven guilty - and only a judge can declare someone guilty. Until that moment, a person is legally innocent. If only we took that approach in real life too..

To close, a little reminder of what companies like Facebook like you to forget unless it's about their executives: privacy is a human right. To be precise, it's article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Search for "UDHR" if you want the full text - for full irony, use Google :-)
Sergeant
Dress Right
10:54 AM on 09/08/2010
First, Jeff, you are in luck. I have no idea who you are and don't care. Second, the whole Twitter and Facebook thingy is like kids discovering a new toy. Privacy issues are made more irrelevant by people who want to share what they had for breakfast with the virtual world. Nobody cares. But for some the contact is more important than the substance. I can only imagine that there is an entire population of people who were isolated from others socially who have found escape and fulfillment in being able to really communicate with others in anonymity.

And the teacher who lost her degree because of her behavior? A lesson learned. If you put it out there they will read it and see it. Including potential employers.
09:49 AM on 09/08/2010
I read about these "incidents" here and there on the web but having them listed all here at once, wow, kinda scary scenarios.
Of course one's work performance has very little to do with what he does in his spare time, but I am willing to bet it will become harder and harder to really separate your private life from your public one.
I have to cite the words of Google's CEO Eric Schmidt during a keynote at the IFA in Berlin: "We Know Where You Are, We Know What You Like" (source: http://t.co/DyfD0NZ )
09:26 AM on 09/08/2010
You put information about yourself online, and then expect privacy? Who are you kidding?
09:09 AM on 09/08/2010
There were issues concerning her conduct in the classroom that were at the root of her problems. Page 7 of the Judge's ruling: https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/Decision%25202008.12.03.pdf
09:05 AM on 09/08/2010
There were issues concerning her conduct in the classroom that were at the root of her problems. As noted in the JUDGE'S RULING: https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/Decision%25202008.12.03.pdf -- Read page 6 and 7 to see that she received an "unsatisfactory" in an one of her evaluation areas.
11:12 AM on 09/08/2010
Great link! Thank you for bringing facts into the arena. Happens so rarely. Fanned. At this point I have revised my thinking: The Stacy Snyder incident does not support the Evans' argument. As a by-the-way, teaching is a minefield for younger people because of boundary issues.
07:54 AM on 09/08/2010
The real problem is our gossip culture. Too many hiring managers and people w/ authority are idiots. Using a photo of a person w/ a drink in their hand at a costume party as an excuse to wreck a person's future is lazy and craven management. We are addicted to pretending everybody should be squeaky clean role models; we just *love* to slap someone down because of a presumed character or 'moral' defect. The popularity of 'reality' TV is in large part about this kind of voyeurism.

Yes, posting gripes about one's job, bosses, or parents of students on social media is not a good idea (even if only 'friends' can see it.) Really, if you have over 100 friends, you really think it's confidential? But the so-called vetting process has gotten really lazy and prurient.

Here's a radical idea: How about judging a person by how they actually do their job?
04:43 AM on 09/08/2010
Sorry, Jeffrey, you are living in the past. With camera phones, anything you say or do in any public place is now, potentially, in the public domain forever.
If you don't want it coming back to bite you in future, don't say or do it.
02:05 AM on 09/08/2010
Facebook's business model depends on the ability to monetize their subscriber's preferences and content for marketing purposes. What's a user supposed to do, if they want to continue to use the service. A simple approach is to use the service - but take privacy back into you own hands by makin it impossible for Facebook to see what you’re writing.

Cloakguard’s free browser plugin helps do this. Just select the message you'd like to keep private, pick a Keyword and CLOAK it. Then even though you send it through Facebook, only the people you've shared your keyword with can read that message.

Free Download - https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/194385/
Free Online tool - http://cloakguard.com/tryitfree.php
Demo - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4qN3TBqx08