Advertisement
Last Friday I went to a one day conference on social networking: Social Networks: Friends or Foes?
www.law.berkeley.edu/institu...dule.htm The mp3s of the panels are now up.
The conference was geared towards lawyers, but don't let that put you off. I think it is really accessible for non-lawyers, and the privacy issues are relevant to everyone.
The panel called "Are You Really My Friend? The Law and Ethics of Covert or Deceptive Data-Gathering" was particularly interesting, I thought. One of the panelists took the position that status updates on Facebook and Twitter should be sealed off and not discoverable (as in an attorney trying to gather information in the discovery process shouldn't be able to get at that information). He described status updates as like 'passing conversations in the hall', kind of like how Bruce Schneier describes them as 'ephemeral conversations'. They're more private simply because they often are made without thinking and can be very revealing.
In other panels:
The Facebook general counsel was interesting - he's begging for people to sue Facebook over privacy issues, particularly on the question 'what is content?' so that he can have a ruling and know where the bright line law is. This is a good question for any social network....
Jennifer Granick (who worked on the defense for Lori Drew) discussed the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and how it applies to transactional data, not content. In other words, data that shows where you were on a social network, who's profile you looked at (and how long you spent looking at it), etc.
There was also a lot of discussion about the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act - the Act that Lori Drew was charged with violating. The argument was essentially that she exceeded what she was authorized to do under MySpace's terms and conditions, and in so doing, violated that Act. Never mind that the Act was designed to prosecute hackers. One of the panelists at the conference thinks that the Lori Drew case is only the beginning of those kinds of cases. He's hoping that the courts narrow the terms of the statute...
Check out the mp3s if you have the time and interest. They're good. :)
www.law.berkeley.edu/institu...dule.htm The mp3s of the panels are now up.
The conference was geared towards lawyers, but don't let that put you off. I think it is really accessible for non-lawyers, and the privacy issues are relevant to everyone.
The panel called "Are You Really My Friend? The Law and Ethics of Covert or Deceptive Data-Gathering" was particularly interesting, I thought. One of the panelists took the position that status updates on Facebook and Twitter should be sealed off and not discoverable (as in an attorney trying to gather information in the discovery process shouldn't be able to get at that information). He described status updates as like 'passing conversations in the hall', kind of like how Bruce Schneier describes them as 'ephemeral conversations'. They're more private simply because they often are made without thinking and can be very revealing.
In other panels:
The Facebook general counsel was interesting - he's begging for people to sue Facebook over privacy issues, particularly on the question 'what is content?' so that he can have a ruling and know where the bright line law is. This is a good question for any social network....
Jennifer Granick (who worked on the defense for Lori Drew) discussed the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and how it applies to transactional data, not content. In other words, data that shows where you were on a social network, who's profile you looked at (and how long you spent looking at it), etc.
There was also a lot of discussion about the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act - the Act that Lori Drew was charged with violating. The argument was essentially that she exceeded what she was authorized to do under MySpace's terms and conditions, and in so doing, violated that Act. Never mind that the Act was designed to prosecute hackers. One of the panelists at the conference thinks that the Lori Drew case is only the beginning of those kinds of cases. He's hoping that the courts narrow the terms of the statute...
Check out the mp3s if you have the time and interest. They're good. :)
posted by:
|
SF Bay Area
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: Privacy and social networks
Mon, October 26, 2009 - 5:42 PMWhen it comes to both privacy issues I still believe it's up to each user to simply be smart. If you don't want it out there don't say it in your status updates, tweets, tribes and groups; etc.
I'm not a private person so if something I say is out there than so be it. Other people are a lot more sensitive. -
-
Re: Privacy and social networks
Mon, October 26, 2009 - 5:47 PMSometimes you might not have that luxury. What if someone posts an incriminating photo of you that you didn't know was taken and tags you in it?
>If you don't want it out there don't say it in your status updates, tweets, tribes and groups; etc.
But yeah, obviously I agree with you on this. -
-
Re: Privacy and social networks
Mon, October 26, 2009 - 5:56 PMThe issue of incriminating photos and statements is something challenged once in a while, but once they are out there it's very hard to reverse any damage that already could be done. There was a recent case here in South Florida where a Catholic Priest was photographed with a female companion making out on a private beach. It turns out the Priest fell in love, but due to the photos being made public on a website he had not choice but to leave his church where he had been respected for years.
So here the question becomes this: Since the Priest was doing something that was clearly against the Church was the person who followed him, took the photos and then published them on the Web doing a service or was this person violating the Priests privacy? -
-
Re: Privacy and social networks
Mon, October 26, 2009 - 7:19 PM>So here the question becomes this: Since the Priest was doing something that was clearly against the Church was the person who followed him, took the photos and then published them on the Web doing a service or was this person violating the Priests privacy?
Why would it be a service? He was violating church rules, but did that invalidate his good works over the years? I'm not familiar with the facts of the story....
As you've stated it, I see it as a violation of the priest's privacy. I also see the issue as an ethical one - 'just because we can take photos and 'out' people, doesn't mean we should'.
What about the situation where a person isn't doing something wrong. Let's say they're at a bar and have had one too many drinks. Someone then clicks the camera and posts it on the social networking site of your choice. What we don't know from seeing the photo is the context. Maybe the person was celebrating something, and had arranged to cab home. Just seeing the photo doesn't tell you that. -
-
Re: Privacy and social networks
Tue, October 27, 2009 - 2:06 PMThis issue is truly an ethical one. Unless someone is truly breaking a law and hurting someone, why cause the drama to make someone look bad. Just let it go.
Right now on this site someone has cross posted something I have on another site. Although the posting they have is my posting, the info they have decided to write with it as a caption is 100% false. It's amazing how people can translate things so differently and then put it out there as if it were gospel. -
-
Re: Privacy and social networks
Wed, October 28, 2009 - 3:13 PMI think part of it has to do with being in a public place. We expect privacy when we are in private but in public our expectations of privacy are reduced.
We used to be able to blend in a little bit into the anonymity of the masses in public, but with cell phone cameras and social networking and other tools making it easier to track and access each other's data, some of that anonymity is being reduced. -
-
Re: Privacy and social networks
Wed, October 28, 2009 - 4:30 PM>I think part of it has to do with being in a public place. We expect privacy when we are in private but in public our expectations of privacy are reduced.
Right - although, I think that a lot of people feel that they should have more of an expectation of privacy in public than they really do. If you're sitting on a park bench reading, the person sitting next to you isn't going to peer over your shoulder and read what you're reading. Some surveillance cameras, in fact, do exactly that - peer over your shoulder and read what you're reading. Law enforcement says 'too bad, you have no expectation of privacy in public', but our cultural norms suggest otherwise.
>We used to be able to blend in a little bit into the anonymity of the masses in public, but with cell phone cameras and social networking and other tools making it easier to track and access each other's data, some of that anonymity is being reduced.
Right - kind of like 'privacy through obscurity'. ;) We're all becoming more and more searchable now. -
-
Re: Privacy and social networks
Wed, October 28, 2009 - 4:55 PM>Right - kind of like 'privacy through obscurity'. ;) We're all becoming more and more searchable now.
I think the pros/cons of search engines really are a big part of this. Vice is but virtue misaplied. The Nazis were notorious for keeping meticulous card files on everyone. Knowledge is power, and they wanted power over everyone. Search engines today produce a card file on everyone. That is particularly true when search capabililty and social networking are combined. It is everyone's carfilel exposed right there.
Search engines are really nice, you can know alot about anything quickly, but that applies to people too, and there really is a privacy component to that. I really like your metaphor about not having the expectaction of someone reading over your shoulder, I think that holds up really well.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
