There has been a lot of debate and handwringing over whether the Internet and social media have redefined "privacy," but while the Internet makes it easier to share, it doesn't force us to share. It's a matter of making choices and balancing the benefits of sharing with the risks, whether significant or trivial.
Recently, Consumer Reports made a big deal out of millions of people using Facebook's "Like" button to publicly acknowledge their interest in pages about medical conditions, for example. Some shared their birth dates, and others where they plan to go on a certain day or even their location at that very moment.
It would be bad if Facebook forced people to share that information, but what's wrong with allowing them to? Sharing your birth day almost certainly brings you birthday greetings, and though it could contribute to identity theft, it probably won't. Lots of people are anxious to share their travels with friends and even strangers, which, in theory, could be used against you by a burglar, but the odds of that actually happening are awfully low.
While I'm a big supporter of federal laws that require medical providers to protect patient privacy, there's no law against talking publicly about your own conditions. For some, it's a great way to get support and potentially life-saving advice. Jeff Jarvis publicly blogged about his prostate cancer and his heart arrhythmia and said he "gained tremendous benefit (by) sharing." He learned from others and he hopes "to be one more guy to convince you men to get your PSA checked." That strikes me as a good thing.
In its story, Consumer Reports warned people about "liking" a page about a medical condition because it could reveal "details an insurer might use against you," but insurance companies already know all about our medical conditions. They document each procedure and -- as many people sadly know -- those records are often used to deny coverage or raise your rates if you change policies or even if you change companies. Disclosure: I'm co-director of ConnectSafely,org, a nonprofit Internet safety organization that receives financial support from Facebook, Google and other tech companies.
People worry about what they choose to share on Facebook but may not even think about what they're already sharing with corporations. Several years ago -- long before the advent of social networking -- I made a last minute decision to fly from New York to Los Angeles instead of flying home to the Bay Area. As I lunched at Jerry's Deli in Studio City I realized that no one, not even my family, knew where I was, but the airline and the rental car company did. My credit card company knew where I had been and what I bought and my cell phone knew my location and who I spoke with. Those loyalty cards we use at grocery stores to save a few pennies reveal what we buy. Do you worry whether the store will tell your health insurance company about the junk food you buy? That's not likely, but Safeway's privacy policy says, "We may also share personal information with our affiliate companies."
Facebook could -- if it wants to -- compile a dossier on its members that paints a pretty good picture of who they are, how they live their lives and who their friends are, but to do that, the company would have to rely mostly on information you chose to share on its service or affiliated apps and web pages. It could violate its own privacy policies and illegally reveal that information without your permission but so could banks, insurance companies, phone companies, grocery stores and even medical providers. And all of these companies can and will disclose this information to courts or government authorities if served with the proper papers.
I'm not completely blasé when it comes to privacy and the Internet. I am worried about how many mobile and social networking apps we entrust with personal information, including our location and phone records, and that some store this information on servers that could be hacked or even turned over to third parties. I worry about whether the developers of these hundreds of thousands of apps have good security and, of course, there is reason to even worry about security of major companies and government agencies -- like Sony and the Veteran's Administration -- whose security has already been breached. I worry about the government possibly misusing warrants and subpoena powers to access my information or the passage of new laws to make it even easier for government agencies to access personal data.
I don't think web tracking is necessarily a bad thing if it's used to target ads that you'll find more relevant and that help subsidize valuable free ad-supported services, but I do agree with the Obama administration that we should have the ability to know if we're being tracked, who is tracking us, what information they're collecting and the ability to stop or control it.
This article first appeared in the San Jose Mercury News and on my Forbes blog
Follow Larry Magid on Twitter: www.twitter.com/larrymagid
Using a SilentPocket™ allows you to take control of your own privacy when it comes to Smartphone tracking. MIAmobi™ addresses this issue and many more problems associated with mobile devices. With over 500,000 mobile app developed for smartphones, many of which are stealth and are eavesdropping on your every move. Some are capable of turning on functions on your phone like your mic, camera, GPS, address book and more, even when it has been turned off. There is only one way to stop this if you really want to know for sure that you have control of your mobile device is to block all forms of wifi coming in or going out. Get informed at MIA-mobi
MIAmobi also provides a tool to help not only teens but everyone from being distracted by cell phones. One of these tools is the SilentPocket. If we start getting people to use the MIAmobi SilentPocket™ “It will save lives” Out site out of mind. Helps prevents texting and driving. Voicemail rings, beeps, blings or vibes will not be heard. Voicemail, Texts and email will be received once the device is taken out of the SilentPocket.
How did that turn out?
Someone on my friends list died a bit over a year ago. Yet since then I started seeing notices on my screen that she has "liked" various sites. Most commonly Walmart. Now I know she is gone and this is all false info. Maybe it's some kind of recurring data error, but I suspect Facebook is letting companies farm our friends list to create false endorsements. So it raises the question; what companies and what pages are providing false claims that I have liked them?
For that, the law needs to be changed. Watch this CISPA space.
"what's wrong with allowing them to?"
what's wrong with an innocent invitation to engage in a shell game?
"Sharing your birth day almost certainly brings you"
one click closer to identity theft.
"the odds of that actually happening are awfully low."
As are the chances of criminals discovering that blowing Scopolamine (devils breath) into victim’s faces, renders them susceptible to manipulation.
"there's no law against talking publicly about your own conditions."
One ‘religion’ allegedly uses it to harvest information, then used to coerce errant devotees.
"I'm co-director of ConnectSafely,org"
Shouldn’t your mission statement be: The coagulation of seemingly innocuous data components into an amorphous mass, is an invitation to manipulation.
"People worry about what they choose to share"
With good reason. Its signing away rights to something with no safeguards in place.
"I worry about whether the developers of these hundreds of thousands of apps have good security"
Unless its absolutely incapable of being hacked, sooner or later it will be.
"I don't think web tracking is necessarily a bad thing if it's used to target ads that you'll find more relevant"
Should this ‘service” be opt in or opt out? If the latter, you're promoting compulsion.
"the ability to stop or control it"
has passed. We now pursue protection against its worst excesses. If that fails, boycott.
has passed. We now pursue protection against its worst excesses. If that fails, boycott.'
Not exactly true. It just requires proactive steps from the user to protect against it. If one uses Tor and doesn't create any accounts while using it that are attached to one's real life identity, the data that can be harvested is fairly useless, as it can't be pegged to you personally.
The "choices" if you want real choice in disclosures are: Don't be on the internet, or commit identity fraud in obtaining your ISP service.
My point remains: This article overlooks that "clicking to share" about yourself is nowhere close to examining the privacy threat you find on the internetz.
People use FB because it's essentially the only game in town. So sure, FB isn't forcing anyone to share, but if you want to communicate semi-publicly with your FB friends, then FB is watching you in the background, data mining every move you make.
FB figured out how to do the social networking/social profile thing best, kudos to them, but don't fool yourself into thinking that it's inevitable for FB to go down the road it's going. It's just as easy to imagine an equally successful version of FB where the owners took a look at the potential there to be reaped by data mining its users and making huge piles of money off of advertising and said "no thanks, we'll just settle for being a mildly profitable company that has created a space for people to communicate with each other without being advertised to constantly."
So far this year, which isn't half over, we have two people lose their job because of posting on Facebook. One decided it'd be hysterical to show how he cheats the time clock. I guess he wasn't aware his supervisor is his friend.
Another decided it'd be hysterical to post a picture of him getting naked in an office (OK the naughty bits blacked out) next to the boss. Nice to see you should be working but you're getting naked.