Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Practical Ethics and the Internet
In a recent post about Facebook, I linked to RFC 1087: Ethics and the Internet. Although my point was clear that people were leaving Facebook on ethical grounds, I didn't go into more detail about RFC 1087.
Heres what RFC 1087 says.
If you agree with Zuckerberg, privacy doesn't matter. If he's right, then we shouldn't mind if uninvited strangers read our email, right? For some people, Facebook's bait and switch may have allowed that.
A common option when you lose the password to your web email service is to either have a password reset link emailed to you or you can answer a security question that you have previously answered. For instance, one popular web email service presents "what was your favorite childhood book?" as a choice. Maybe you really loved "Winnie the Pooh." If you are using this particular web email service and chose that question and answer and you also listed the book in your Facebook interests, then it would be very easy for a stranger to gain access to your email (when he could not previously). You don't have anything in your email you would like to keep secret, right?
Update 7/15: Eben Moglen
Heres what RFC 1087 says.
The IAB strongly endorses the view of the Division Advisory Panel of the National Science Foundation Division of Network, Communications Research and Infrastructure which, in paraphrase, characterized as unethical and unacceptable any activity which purposely: ...(e) compromises the privacy of users.EFF explained how Facebook compromised the privacy of its users.
Today, Facebook removed its users' ability to control who can see their own interests and personal information. Certain parts of users' profiles, "including your current city, hometown, education and work, and likes and interests" will now be transformed into "connections," meaning that they will be shared publicly. If you don't want these parts of your profile to be made public, your only option is to delete them.So why should we care about the ethics of privacy? Why did the Internet Activities Board think this is important?
If you agree with Zuckerberg, privacy doesn't matter. If he's right, then we shouldn't mind if uninvited strangers read our email, right? For some people, Facebook's bait and switch may have allowed that.
A common option when you lose the password to your web email service is to either have a password reset link emailed to you or you can answer a security question that you have previously answered. For instance, one popular web email service presents "what was your favorite childhood book?" as a choice. Maybe you really loved "Winnie the Pooh." If you are using this particular web email service and chose that question and answer and you also listed the book in your Facebook interests, then it would be very easy for a stranger to gain access to your email (when he could not previously). You don't have anything in your email you would like to keep secret, right?
Update 7/15: Eben Moglen
Labels: ethics, facebook, privacy
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Facebook: Breaking up is Hard to Do
I mentioned my admiration for Danah Boyd's work in a previous post almost three years ago:
With the extraordinary recent blowback against Facebook and her SXSW talk, I was curious to see if she had blogged about people quitting facebook, and indeed, she has: Quitting Facebook is pointless; challenging them to do better is not was a worthwhile read and I found myself agreeing with her for the most part.
However, consistent with pretty much everyone else I've seen explaining their decision to stay with Facebook, she unnecessarily creates imaginary straw men: people who are leaving just because they're unhappy. I don't know anyone who is leaving just because they're unhappy. I do know people departing because of Facebook behaving unethically.
Let's cut to the chase and get to the part where Facebook is the abusive boyfriend that everyone has to stand by. Boyd explains that we have to stand by Facebook because it has put its users in a vulnerable position:
This is an honorable position that lets us preclude leaving facebook from having any meaning unless it changes the behavior of Facebook. However, many people are leaving exactly because they have learned that Facebook holds all the chips in the relationship and will not change. If they and people they care about can leave Facebook without damage, that is meaningful for them regardless of its effects on Facebook's behavior. Can you say cult?
If all this sounds strangely familiar, it is. Again, we have a case of a corporation privatizing profits while socializing costs (our time) and by sticking with facebook (and falling for a "bunch of mistakes" - predators do not mind being thought incompetent), we're bailing them out. Good luck with that.
Assuming Facebook won't change, the only answer for a problem like this is for people to leave. It's a world wide web last time I checked and this is a trainwreck we've been watching in slow-motion for four years that demands more and more of people's time. Time that people don't have to deal with this nonsense anymore. It's time to get radical about protecting our time.
I usually don't say much about online social networks since Danah Boyd pretty much says everything that needs to be said.
With the extraordinary recent blowback against Facebook and her SXSW talk, I was curious to see if she had blogged about people quitting facebook, and indeed, she has: Quitting Facebook is pointless; challenging them to do better is not was a worthwhile read and I found myself agreeing with her for the most part.
However, consistent with pretty much everyone else I've seen explaining their decision to stay with Facebook, she unnecessarily creates imaginary straw men: people who are leaving just because they're unhappy. I don't know anyone who is leaving just because they're unhappy. I do know people departing because of Facebook behaving unethically.
Let's cut to the chase and get to the part where Facebook is the abusive boyfriend that everyone has to stand by. Boyd explains that we have to stand by Facebook because it has put its users in a vulnerable position:
I believe that a significant minority of users are at risk because of decisions Facebook has made and I think that those of us who aren’t owe it to those who are to work through these issues.
This is an honorable position that lets us preclude leaving facebook from having any meaning unless it changes the behavior of Facebook. However, many people are leaving exactly because they have learned that Facebook holds all the chips in the relationship and will not change. If they and people they care about can leave Facebook without damage, that is meaningful for them regardless of its effects on Facebook's behavior. Can you say cult?
If all this sounds strangely familiar, it is. Again, we have a case of a corporation privatizing profits while socializing costs (our time) and by sticking with facebook (and falling for a "bunch of mistakes" - predators do not mind being thought incompetent), we're bailing them out. Good luck with that.
Assuming Facebook won't change, the only answer for a problem like this is for people to leave. It's a world wide web last time I checked and this is a trainwreck we've been watching in slow-motion for four years that demands more and more of people's time. Time that people don't have to deal with this nonsense anymore. It's time to get radical about protecting our time.
Labels: facebook
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Six Word Memoir
Nobody has to think too much.
I was tagged by Ashley to write a six word memoir.
Here are the rules:
1. Write your own six word memoir.
2. Post it on your blog and include a visual illustration if you’d like.
3. Link to the person that tagged you in your post.
4. Tag more blogs with links.
Tagging: the facebook blog
Labels: bobdylan, facebook, sxswi
