The Ongoing Social Media War for Your Information
Creepy oddness I just ran across: after a friend of mine on Facebook shared a link, their friend saw an advertisement on CNN.com that said so. “[So-and-so] shared [this-and-that] on facebook”, it said. This is probably only targeted to friends of that friend. Presumably, this is a service, or else why would CNN and Facebook be in kahutz to set this up without either user’s awareness or express permission?
How (technically) did it happen?
By default, Facebook allows all of the following information about you to be shared by your friends:
- Personal info (activities, interests, etc.)
- Status updates
- Online presence
- Website
- Family and relationship status
- Relationship details (significant other, looking for, etc.)
- Education and work
- My videos
- My links
- My notes
- My photos
- Photos and videos I’m tagged in
- About me
- My birthday
- My hometown
- My religious and political views
“Shared” means publicly available for harvesting by facebook applications, or now, apparently, facebook partner web sites (read on). If you’re logged into facebook, here is the link to the friends privacy settings page where you can uncheck all that.
That isn’t the only place with related settings, it seems. This page has a setting for whether “select partner” web sites (which evidently includes CNN) can “personalize your experience” by use of such information.
Even if you disable that, and you have a facebook account and have “added” any reasonable amount of people you know, the following is true: anyone can find your profile page, and from that page, they can learn all the following: your name, gender, “networks”, friend list, and Pages. This (minus a few things you can withhold, like a profile picture and your city) is all defined by Facebook as “publicly available information“.
All of this bothers me. About their “publicly available information” policy, I agree with this blogger – this search of his blog pulls up three posts about it at this writing. The report he links to from the EFF is alarming, and frankly damning. And I never thought I’d agree with the ACLU on any point 
It seems to be the most common attitude of social media engineers; that there is no ethical problem in manipulating people into disclosing as much about themselves as possible, and making this information boundlessly and permanently available. They declaim: we respect your privacy. Rubbish! Their bottom line is advertising, and that means the more information about users they can harvest and exploit (with or without your knowledge and express consent), the better their bottom line. End of story – and all the evidence in the ongoing story supports it.
Google Buzz is also terrible with privacy. Here’s the revision as of this writing, of the Wikipedia entry’s section on privacy concerns over that service. Most notable and alarming there is the report that by using Buzz, a woman was found by her abusive ex-husband, because it shared her contact and work information without her knowledge or consent.
This page relates how to disable the service in gmail, or at the least curb what it discloses about you.
Other readings – a blogger who was creeped out by Buzz’ initial release – Google quoted as officially stating “there is no complete privacy” – a blog post that may be fairer to Google. Still, the release of Buzz was recklessly dismissive of (or even contemptuous toward) privacy concerns.
I’m kinda puzzled, though. The newest relevant blog article I can find on it (and here are two previous – 1 – 2) relates that Buzz hasn’t disabled default sharing of your “following” and “followed by” lists, but; in my own test of Google Buzz, after I joined, activated my profile, and logged out, I viewed my public profile link, and it didn’t display who I’m following and who I am being followed by. (I’ve suddenly just imagined a strange and tasteless modern retelling of Jesus’ arrest and mock trial, in which Peter is accused by those around him of following Jesus’ twitter account, and denies it thrice before, erm.. the google cache reveals it.. and Peter goes out and weeps bitterly.) It also said there wasn’t enough information to be indexed, so maybe that’s why. Regardless.. it’s well enough for me to be part of Google’s Brave New World via the search engine and gmail. Sigh – and YouTube.
Let’s not forget that my link was stripped of its commentary on the way to the friend’s page on CNN–thus making it look like I tacitly endorsed the link. That’s another problematic issue. Rather like strip-mining quotes….
@ PixelFish: Oh. Yeah that’s a problem.
(And you may have guessed, standers-by, that this is the friend to whom this happened.)