From cf29488c587334874cf491a01a1f74ba3ac7de45 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: P. J. McDermott Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 13:46:59 -0400 Subject: Merge branch 'new'. --- (limited to 'essays/social-networking.html') diff --git a/essays/social-networking.html b/essays/social-networking.html deleted file mode 100755 index 47acb13..0000000 --- a/essays/social-networking.html +++ /dev/null @@ -1,350 +0,0 @@ - - -

On Facebook, Google+, and Ethical Social Networking

-

- TO COME: An introduction and a section on Google+. -

-

The Ethics of Facebook

-

- Facebook shares their users' personal information with third parties. - They use mere Web site design changes as an excuse to revert users' - privacy settings to unsafe defaults. Their social platform has huge - security holes that allow personal information to be leaked. One such - hole made some users' private chats accessible to all of their contacts. - Facebook also exposes users to malware and identity theft. [1] They - make it easy for application developers to collect personal information. - [2] The Wall Street Journal found that these application developers - collect this personal information, link it with other information, and - sell it to others. [3] -

-

- In general, Facebook has always operated on an opt-out basis. In some - cases, you can actually disable third-party access to your information. - But you must always be on the lookout for new "features" or changes to - privacy settings. Facebook always changes the way it collects - information, and it catches many people unaware. But it's impossible to - opt out of things you don't even know about. Recently, Facebook added a - feature they call "tag suggestions". If you have photos on your - profile, Facebook can pick out people's faces and suggest names for - them. This may sound useful, but it's the tip of an almost nightmarish - ethics iceberg in information systems. Facebook uses facial recognition - software to make this work; they scan already-tagged photos and record - distinguishing facial features and then find photos with similar faces - and give them names. They maintain a database of people's facial - features. They never notified anyone about this database. They never - asked users if they could record this information. Instead, of course, - they made it an opt-out feature; you have to explicitly disable this - hidden feature to keep your facial information out of the database. - This new feature has even sparked an investigation by the European - Union. [4][5] But just imagine what Facebook could do with this - information (and consider their track record with personal information). - I suspect they may soon start selling facial data to other companies, - law enforcement agencies, and oppressive governments (I've heard that - the U.K. once used video camera footage to locate and arrest protesters, - so imagine what they could do with facial data). -

-

- Basically, Facebook is a business. And you are not their customer. You - are their product. They are, in fact, selling their products to - advertisers. That is, they use a person's face (without getting - permission and without paying anything) to advertise things to that - person's friends. Claim to like something, and you've given a product - endorsement at a price advertising agencies would love. [6] -

-

- And they also seem to like selling out their users to governments and - limiting what their users can read and say. After their recent - collaboration with Chinese partners, the Facebook platform was allowed - into China under political censorship. At the time, Facebook lobbyist - Adam Conner remarked, "we're allowing too much, maybe, free speech". - [7][8] The Associated Press reported last month that Facebook sold out - hundreds of peaceful pro-Palestinian activists who had been organizing - events through the social platform. Facebook allowed governments to - track its users' activities. As a result, more than 300 peaceful - activists were added to airline terrorism watch lists and denied the - right to leave their countries. International air travel was disrupted - as planes from Geneva and Italy were diverted for security inspections. - 310 people were detained after landing in Israel on their way to stand - with Palestinians in a peaceful mission of solidarity and fact-finding. - [9][10] Imagine what might have happened if Facebook (and widespread - publicly-accessible computer networks for that matter) existed during - the civil rights movement. Would there be racial equality in the United - States today? Or would peaceful protesters organizing events have been - sold out and arrested before they could even meet? -

-

- But it seems you don't even have to use Facebook to get tracked by - Facebook. Everyone who sees a "Like" button somewhere on the Web (as - I'm sure you have) can be tracked. Facebook has the ability to map out - the browsing behavior of a massive number (a number that grows by tens - of millions each month) of Web users, even those who don't use Facebook. - [11] Again, imagine what they could do with such vast amounts of - information. -

-

- Things like these gaping holes in privacy, devious information - collection practices, abuse of users, censorship, and tracking inspired - Matt Lee, campaigns manager, and John Sullivan, executive director, of - the Free Software Foundation to write about Facebook's poor track record - with privacy and create rather amusing "Dislike" and "not f'd" buttons. [12] -

-

Ethical Social Networking

-

- TODO: Move characteristic four into a note somewhere, as it is rare for a - service provider to attempt to claim copyright on user-submitted works. - Also, refer to the Franklin Street Statement. -

-

- But social networking is not inherently evil. You can connect with old - friends and discover new ones without sacrificing privacy, security, - autonomy, and freedom. You just have to be careful about the platforms - you use. I've identified four basic characteristics that a social - networking platform must have for it to be an ethical one that doesn't - abuse its users. The first two characteristics are universal; all - viable platforms, whether running on your own computer or hosted by a - service provider, must have these. The last two apply only if you - choose to use a platform that is run by someone else as a service. -

-
    -
  1. - Software freedom. You must be free to use the software that powers - the social networking platform on your own computer without - restrictions. You must be free to inspect the software and modify - it. You must be free to share the software with others, with or - without modifications. With these freedoms, you have full control - over your social networking and you can decide who has access to - which personal information. Without these freedoms, only the - developer can decide what the software does, and you may not even - be allowed to know what it does to you. -
    2. -
  2. - Federation. You must be able to run the software on your own - computer and still be able to communicate with other people using - other copies of the software. If the software has protocols for - communication between users across multiple installations, then the - software is federated. For example, e-mail is federated; you can - run your own mail server and still send mail to other people who - use other servers. This is because all standards-compliant mail - servers speak the same protocol. -
    3. -
  3. - Privacy. If you choose to use a social networking service run by - someone else, the service must offer a clear and agreeable privacy - policy to which the service provider must strictly adhere. The - service provider must not be allowed to give your personal - information to third parties without your consent (unless required - by law) or use your information in ways that threaten your privacy - and autonomy. -
    4. -
  4. - No claims of copyright. The service provider must agree that your - personal information is yours, not theirs. There must not be any - claims of copyright on the information you provide. The provider - may, however, require you to license such information to them - and/or to others for it to be published on the service; in this - case, you should make sure you agree with the license terms before - using the service. -
    5. -
-

- Let's look at some social networking platforms and see how they adhere - to these criteria. We'll start with Facebook. Facebook fails criterion - one; you cannot run, inspect, modify, or share the software that powers - Facebook. This means it also fails criterion two; it is inherently not - federated because you cannot run it on your own computer. Since - Facebook is not federated and you're stuck with the hosted service, - criteria three and four apply. Facebook has a terrible track record - with privacy and therefore fails criterion three. According to their - terms of service, you retain copyright on your information and give - Facebook "a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, - worldwide license to use" your information. [13] This is standard - licensing language that allows Facebook to publish information you - submit, and with these terms Facebook seems to pass criterion four. - (I've heard that Facebook claims or used to claim copyright on your - information, but seeing these terms of service I'll give Facebook the - benefit of the doubt here.) Facebook fails three out of the four - criteria, and we can conclude that Facebook is an unethical social - networking platform. -

-

- Next we'll evaluate Twitter. Again, it fails criterion one since you - cannot run, inspect, modify, or share the software. And again it fails - criterion two since you cannot run the software on your own computer. - Twitter has a clear privacy policy that describes what information is - made public, what information you may optionally provide, what - information is collected in logs, and what information is to be kept - private except under certain circumstances. [14] I don't know of any - occasion on which Twitter has failed to adhere to this policy, so if you - agree with this policy then Twitter passes criterion three. Twitter's - terms of service explicitly leave you with the rights to your - information, but you must agree to grant Twitter "a worldwide, - non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to - use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display - and distribute [your information] in any and all media or distribution - methods (now known or later developed)". [15] Again this is standard - licensing language that allows Twitter to publish the information you - post, and I conclude that with these terms Twitter passes the fourth - criterion. In summary, Twitter passes two out of the four criteria; - it's not completely ethical since it leaves you without important - freedoms and at the mercy of a single centralized provider, but it seems - it's not as bad as Facebook is in terms of privacy. -

-

- Next up is Identi.ca. Identi.ca is an instance of StatusNet, a free - software microblogging platform that is similar in function to Twitter. - StatusNet is licensed under the GNU Affero General Public License, - which requires that all users, including those who use the software over - a network, have all of the necessary freedoms with the software. With - this license, StatusNet, and therefore Identi.ca, pass criterion one - beautifully. StatusNet implements the OStatus protocol, which allows - users of other installations of StatusNet (or even other software such - as GNU Social) to communicate seamlessly. With this, StatusNet and GNU - Social (and instances of the software such as Identi.ca) are federated - and pass criterion two. If you choose to use Identi.ca instead of - running StatusNet or GNU Social on your own computer, then criteria - three and four apply. Identi.ca has a very clear privacy policy that - describes what information is made public, what information remains - private, and how information may be used by Identi.ca, by users, and by - other instances of StatusNet and GNU Social. [16] With this, Identi.ca - passes criterion three. Identi.ca's terms of service make no claims to - copyright on your information. The terms require that you grant - Identi.ca "a world-wide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to - reproduce, modify, adapt and publish the Content solely for the purpose - of displaying, distributing and promoting your notice stream". They - also require that you "grant all readers the right to use, re-use, - modify and/or re-distribute the Content under the terms of the Creative - Commons Attribution 3.0 [Public License]". [17] This license allows - readers to share your notices, to modify your notices, and to - incorporate your notices in larger works, as long as they give you - credit for your words and do not misrepresent you. These are agreeable - terms that leave you in control of your information and allow the world - to share and build upon your work, so we can conclude that Identi.ca - passes criterion four. Identi.ca, which runs the free social networking - platform StatusNet, passes all four criteria. It is an ethical platform - and service that protects your privacy, autonomy, and freedom. Because - of this, I myself use Identi.ca. [18] Since the software is free, before - registering I checked the source code to make sure that my password - would be stored securely. And since the software is federated, I - reserve the right, especially if Identi.ca in the future ever fails - criteria three and four or ceases to exist, to move to my own - self-hosted instance of the software without losing contact with other - users. -

-

- These three cases are just examples of popular platforms. There are of - course many others. Google recently opened up their new platform, - Google+, which so far is neither free nor federated. The Diaspora - project began in response to outrage over privacy on Facebook; Diaspora - itself is free and federated, and there are hosted Diaspora services - with decent privacy policies. Finally, I don't claim that these - criteria are perfect; they are merely the result of observations I've - made. A similar set of criteria for "freedom in the 'cloud'" has - recently been offered by Georg Greve, founder of the Free Software - Foundation Europe. [19] -

-

References:

-
    -
  1. - "Five Hidden Dangers of Facebook". CBS News. CBS Interactive - Inc. May 11, 2010. - <http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/0/08/earlyshow/saturday/main6469373.shtml>. -
    2. -
  2. - Barnett, Emma. "Your data is Facebook's most valuable asset". - The Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group Limited. January 17, - 2011. - <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/8264210/Your-data-is-Facebooks-most-valuable-asset.html>. -
    3. -
  3. - Steel, Emily and Fowler, Geoffery A. "Facebook in Online Privacy - Breach; Applications Transmitting Identifying Information". The - Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones & Company, Inc. October 18, - 2010. - <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304772804575558484075236968.html>. -
    4. -
  4. - Gannes, Liz. "Facebook facial recognition prompts EU privacy - probe". CNET News. CBS Interactive Inc. June 8, 2011. - <http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-20070148-93/facebook-facial-recognition-prompts-eu-privacy-probe/>. -
    5. -
  5. - Snyder, Bill. "Facebook Facial Recognition: Why It's a Threat to - Privacy". PCWorld. PCWorld Communications, Inc. June 21, - 2011. - <http://www.pcworld.com/article/230790/facebook_facial_recognition_why_its_a_threat_to_privacy.html>. -
    6. -
  6. - Tynan, Dan. "Facebook ads use your face for free". ITworld. - ITworld. January 25, 2011. - <http://www.itworld.com/internet/134677/facebook-ads-use-your-face-free>. -
    7. -
  7. - Williamson, Elizabeth; Schatz, Amy; and Fowler, Geoffery A. - "Facebook Seeking Friends in Beltway". The Wall Street Journal. - Dow Jones & Company, Inc. April 20, 2011. - <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703789104576273242590724876.html>. -
    8. -
  8. - Crovitz, L. Gordon. "Facebook's Dubious New Friends". The Wall - Street Journal. Dow Jones & Company, Inc. May 2, 2011. - <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703567404576293233665299792.html>. -
    9. -
  9. - Higgins, Alexander. "Facebook Now Helping Governments Spy On And - Arrest Peaceful Activists". The Intel Hub. The Intel Hub. July - 9, 2011. - <http://theintelhub.com/2011/07/09/facebook-now-helping-governments-spy-on-and-arrest-peaceful-activists/>. -
    10. -
  10. - Last, Jeremy. "Israel uses Facebook to blacklist, detain or deport - Tel Aviv-bound travellers". thestar.com. Toronto Star. July 8, - 2011. - <http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/1022008--israel-uses-facebook-to-blacklist-detain-or-deport-tel-aviv-bound-travellers>. -
    11. -
  11. - Roosendaal, Arnold. "Facebook Tracks and Traces Everyone: Like - This!". Social Science Research Network. Social Science - Electronic Publishing, Inc. November 30, 2010. - <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1717563>. -
    12. -
  12. - Lee, Matt and Sullivan, John. "Mark Zuckerberg is TIME Magazine's - Person of the Year? Where's the "dislike" button?". Free Software - Foundation. Free Software Foundation, Inc. February 3, 2011. - <http://www.fsf.org/facebook>. -
    13. -
  13. - "Statement of Rights and Responsibilities". Facebook. Facebook, - Inc. April 26, 2011. - <http://www.facebook.com/terms.php>. -
    14. -
  14. - "Twitter Privacy Policy". Twitter. Twitter Inc. June 23, - 2011. - <http://twitter.com/privacy>. -
    15. -
  15. - "Twitter Terms of Service". Twitter. Twitter Inc. June 1, - 2011. - <http://twitter.com/tos>. -
    16. -
  16. - "Privacy". Identi.ca. StatusNet Inc. - <http://identi.ca/doc/privacy>. -
    17. -
  17. - "Tos". Identi.ca. StatusNet Inc. - <http://identi.ca/doc/tos>. -
    18. -
  18. - McDermott, P. J. "P. J. McDermott (pehjota)". Identi.ca. - StatusNet Inc. - <http://identi.ca/pehjota>. -
    19. -
  19. - Greve, Georg C. F. "Freedom in the 'Cloud'?". freedom bits. - Free Software Foundation Europe e.V. July 30, 2011. - <http://blogs.fsfe.org/greve/?p=452>. -
    20. -
- -- cgit v0.9.1