(Picture source: https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/417314_10150931418786729_1769228986_n.jpg)

I found this picture when I was browsing Facebook’s homepage on Facebook. It shows the regions where Facebook users are located and the millions of linkages among them. The picture looks fancy, as it shows how interconnected our world is (please ignore China for the moment). However, hidden behind these tiny blue lines is an important fact that there is a huge amount of personal privacy flowing around and ready to be utilized for purposes other than socializing.

Oxford Dictionary tells me that privacy means “the state or condition of being free from being observed or disturbed by other people”. If we follow this definition strictly, then it seems that whenever someone “observes” you on Facebook you lose your privacy to some extent. And now observation on Facebook is so easy: click on the friend’s name and his/her whole Facebook life is displayed in front of you in a time-line. So from the moment we signed up for a Facebook account and put down our first status/photo, we are already giving up some privacy in order to socialize and interact with others.

But when we argue about the privacy issues on Facebook, we are not (at least I am not) so much worried about the abovementioned privacy loss as compared to the loss of privacy to advertisers and application developers – the former being controlled loss while the latter not. I trust my friends will view my profile with no malicious intentions (and I hope they do not fail me). But I still have doubt over whether Facebook uses our data in a legitimate way despite its promise to “only send anonymized data to advertisers and app developers” and despite my privacy setting to allow only limited access to my data by third-party applications. After all, Facebook makes most of its money from these sectors, and when money is involved, boundaries become blurry.

Facebook states that allowing data to be passed to advertisers and application developers help build user-specific advertisements and applications that improve user experience. The result sounds promising but the process remains questionable: How does Facebook anonymize data? By just removing the name/ID of the user? I was checking my Facebook privacy settings and found out by surprise that many of the applications I use have access to my education history, birthday, hometown, photos and even my location – literally everything except my name. With the private information at hand, the third-parties can easily pinpoint a particular user without needing to know his/her name, and all that is happening without the user being informed.

So Facebook anonymizes us without anonymizing us. Think that is the worst part? Wrong! Facebook not only passes our confidential data to third-parties, it also allows some applications to post on our behalf (many people do not know how to turn this function off or do not bother). Facebook uses our data to profit from the third-parties while the third-parties use our time-line to publicize to (and therefore make money from) our friends. We are no longer just the target of commercialization; we are involuntarily becoming the tool of it.

Any remedies for us users? We can accept certain controlled privacy loss on Facebook because that is necessary for socializing purposes. However, on Facebook we will also encounter uncontrolled privacy infringement. Delete Facebook account for good? For some people that hurts even more than being exploited by commercial third-parties, and apparently our data is still available to Facebook even some time after deletion of account. We know the FTC and other supervising bodies are working on this mess but we cannot rely solely on them. It is our Facebook time-line, and we need to actively monitor it ourselves, starting from familiarizing ourselves with the privacy settings. This takes time and could not totally cut off the privacy outflow, but it does limit to a large extent how our data is used and where it goes to.

I sincerely hope that the next time I see this picture, I can focus on its visual impact without having to worry about the costs behind the privacy flow.

I’m sitting in my room. It’s a typical Friday night and my friends and I are hanging out, eating snacks and surfing the web. On each of our screens is a variation of the same tabs open. Facebook, twitter, tumblr, some school assignment we have to print out and various fashion blogs.

Our transition from the real world to our internet world is so seamless that it is scary.

Founded in 2004, Facebook was initially a site meant for college students. While the demographic of the site hasn’t changed all that much–it’s still a site used by young adults and teens–it’s purpose and role in our lives has changed quite drastically.

Instead of just being a place to reconnect with people, Facebook has become an extension of our real life selves. Conversations are continued and started, friends are made and lost and people so regularly post every aspect of their lives that Facebook stalking has become an unspoken social norm.

Facebook stalking. The term itself brings a smile of sorts to my face. According to a Google search the term stalking means “to harass someone with unwanted and obsessive attention.” Woah. That’s definitely not what I think I’m doing when I am “Facebook stalking” someone I’ve just met or friended.

Just for kicks, I looked up the term Facebook stalking as well and the first post on the infamous Urban Dictionary (a dictionary for slang words and all) was “a covert method of investigation using facebook.com. Good for discovering a wealth of information about people you don’t actually know.”

And there was even an example of a conversation between two people about the term:

“Person 1: Did you go to the __________ party last night?
Person 2: No, but I was routinely Facebook stalking (insert name of person you have never actually spoken to here)’s photos and saw pictures from it.”

I have to admit that after reading this I laughed a bit and showed my friends.

The reason why I’m talking about Facebook stalking is to bring attention to the larger issue of how much Facebook has changed our offline interactions. I can’t explain how awkward it is when you find yourself having personal information about a person that you shouldn’t have.
For example, a friend of mine had been perusing her college class of 2016 Facebook when she and her friend saw a picture of a cute guy. Her friend had joked about how they would get together in the future. At a later date at a college meetup, my friend met the guy. They began talking and initiated a friendship. Later in the summer, at a send off she saw the guy again. By this point she had told her dad about him (note: her father and the boy have never met). When the dad saw him, he recognized him as the guy from Facebook and said to him “Hey, you’re (insert dude’s name) right.”

While this funny is funny to think about now, this story is not special. Almost everyone I know has had some sort of awkward encounter happen with a stranger because of information found out through Facebook stalking.

For me, this is frustrating and confusing. Why do we put our lives online only to be weirded out when our “friends” find out about it and bring it to light? It makes no sense and reveals how uncomfortable we are as a society with the idea of having everything known.

P.S. here is an interesting article about Facebook and stalking: http://jezebel.com/5945963/facebook-increasingly-determined-to-ruin-the-only-fun-thing-about-facebook-stalking

“The instrument (the telescreen, it was called) could be dimmed, but there was no way of shutting it off completely.”

George Orwell, “Nineteen Eighty-Four”

“I did not wish to live what was not life, living is so dear; nor did I wish to practice resignation, unless it was quite necessary.”

Henry David Thoreau, “Walden”

When I created my Facebook four years ago, in August of 2008, I was a timid freshman struggling to navigate the turbulent social currents of high school. I didn’t fit in. (Who did?) At the start, Facebook provided an outlet that I could retreat to, a “safe zone” of carefully structured, measured interaction between acquaintances I had barely seen outside of school. It was comforting to have the familiar blue-and-white to fall back on when my introversion and still-developing social skills made face-to-face conversation — and even phone conversation — an awkward and exhausting ordeal. I didn’t care that the majority of my “friends” weren’t people I felt comfortable carrying on an actual dialogue with. Like Linus’ security blanket, Facebook was always with me, offering the semblance of a social circle from the app on the iPod touch in my pocket or simply from the shadowy recesses of my mind.

Facebook messed up my mind in more ways than one. It also affected — in real-time — the way I interacted with people every day. What I saw on others’ profiles created pre-formed judgements that spoiled actual social contact with them. Facebook gave me hasty distaste for some and a sugar-coated impression of others. In short, my perception of others’ character was warped before I even had a chance to get to know them. Facebook stunted my social progress by lending me a false sense of intimacy with those I barely knew. It was a crutch and a drug, and I quickly became addicted to it.

Flash forward to today: my social skills are marginally better, I hope, and I can sit down at my keyboard and reflect honestly on my use (and abuse) of this now-ubiquitous social networking site. Facebook serves in my everyday life as a utility, from which I can send out invitations to a senior piano recital, post photos from Outdoor Action, and keep tabs on my friends and family back at home and elsewhere. It’s still a crutch (I use it all the time to circumvent actual conversation) and it’s most certainly still a drug. But I think that with a certain awareness of the functions it plays in my life, I can more frankly gauge when it’s taking a role that it shouldn’t or simply being a huge timesuck. (Speaking of which: this May ’11 eWeek article notes that networking utilities “translate into $10,375 of wasted productivity per person annually.” Not 100% related, but a horrifying correlation nonetheless.)

Awareness or not, I won’t be leaving anytime soon. Short of leaving behind modern life, on a Walden-esque retreat, I will continue to rely on Facebook and use it as the essential utility it was designed to be. For deleting my account, among other things, would destroy what has become a comprehensive, albeit varnished, record of my past, and an extension of my mind.

Picture this. You’re peacefully chatting with a friend online. You take a stroll outside to grab the mail. Out of nowhere, you receive a letter ordering you to court based on your activity on social network sites.

Is this fair? Is this legitimate? Is this even legal?

Apparently, it is. Facebook and other social network sites often cooperate freely with law enforcement to utilize all resources in preventing crime and establishing safety. Especially in this technological age, this makes perfect sense and is defendable. Unfortunately, concerns over the legitimacy of such evidence obtained from these sites are raised.

The issue of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution in relation to online activity must be addressed. Of course, this amendment prevents unreasonable search and seizure, requiring officers to search private property only with reasonable suspicion and a subpoena or search warrant. Upheld by Mapp v. Ohio, this amendment has been invoked countless times in cases in which the evidence may have been collected under suspicious conditions. Harvesting information from social network sites definitely constitutes one of these grey-area conditions. People may object to seizure of conversations or photos as evidence from these sites, citing privacy. However, Facebook and many other sites freely cooperate with law enforcement in such situations, handing years of conversations, photos, posts, and personal information to officers who brandish subpoenas. Furthermore, law enforcement has been known to make false profiles on Facebook posing as young girls to incriminate predators and as potential buyers to incriminate drug dealers. Although effective, the legality and morality of these deliberate deceptions remain questionable, and even Facebook policies strictly prohibit false accounts.

While such evidence stands in court, other (less questionable) means exist to obtain incriminating information. As a result, companies such as Twitter go to lengths in order to protect the privacy of the users, occasionally in the face of legal threats (http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/03/tech/social-media/twitter-ruling-transparency/index.html). This raises the question of ownership of statements made on social network sites; if users own all statements made on social network sites, then Facebook and Twitter should not hand over information to law enforcement. In addition, some have attempted to use mere activity on social network sites to incriminate or demand statements from people. For example, the banking firm Julius Baer subpoenaed an “officer” of the WikiLeaks Facebook page in regard to leaked documents by the actual company WikiLeaks. This “officer” had no inside knowledge of WikiLeaks operations and possessed no responsibilities or legitimate affiliations to WikiLeaks; he was simply listed as a Stanford representative of WikiLeaks on a Facebook fan page (fortunately, Julius Baer eventually dropped the case).

The point to consider is this: what if Julius Baer didn’t drop the case? What if the trial proceeded to conclusion? Would this “officer” be forced to go through the whole trial and serve as the representative of WikiLeaks? Can Facebook statements, photos, and even activity be used as evidence in court? What if Facebook decided to have open conversation with law enforcement to perform a system-wide scan of illegal activities (such as underage drinking and smoking, illicit activities, etc) and report all offenses to policemen? What if Facebook installed a report button such that anyone could report illegal activities? Of course, this makes logical sense, but how far does this infringe on privacy? If all statements, photos, and activity on social network sites can be accessed freely by law enforcement, where is the line drawn for personal information (private conversations) and public information (about me sections)? Would sifting through private conversations be considered as eavesdropping? Would all privacy be neglected in the name of justice?

Obviously, this is a slippery slope consideration. Facebook is not going to hand over its database of information to incriminate everyone. Still, this is an interesting point to consider. What if…

In my opinion, the biggest effect Facebook has had on society is on the social part of ‘social’ networking and the changes that have emerged regarding how people interact with each other. Facebook is essentially a massive network of pen pals, in which users are friends with people that they have known forever or just met a minute ago. Facebook has redefined the meaning of virtual friends and is changing how we view and define friendships. Wall posts, instant messages, regular messages, and poking are all forms of communication that users engage in. While some have praised Facebook by allowing its users to continually stay in contact, chat, and write to each other, is it really so great? In my opinion, the biggest difference between now and the generation when my parent’s grew up is the way people communicate. Yes, it is great that technology is allowing teenagers and young adults opportunities to engage in online conversation, meet new people, and stay in touch with relatives or friends that are far away, but how is it affecting our social skills? In the article we were assigned to read, the author stated, “Not only do the sites provide a new context for interaction, they can also help in transmission of social cues that facilitate offline interactions. Friends can learn conversation-triggering things about each other that might have slipped through the cracks in a purely face-to-face age.” There have certainly been new means of interaction among people through social networking sites, but I believe it has had a negative affect on society. There are positives that can be picked out of communication via social networking, as the author pointed out, but it has changed the way face-to-face communication is viewed. Many people are ‘friends’ online and write each other wall posts and messages, but when they see each other in person, it is a different, subtler friendship. A person who tends to be shy when talking in person may have a completely different personality online because they aren’t talking face-to-face and they have time to detail and craft a message is deemed acceptable by the recipient. People are losing their social skills in how to talk to a person face-to-face and now lack the inability to use body language to express thoughts or feelings. Furthermore, our generation is so enthralled in Facebook and the most recent status updates, relationship statuses, and photo albums that one of the biggest conversation triggers is Facebook itself. Facebook was created to facilitate better communication, but I believe that it is ruining communication skills of kids varying from thirteen years old all the way through young adult hood. I see the changes with middle schoolers in my town and how social media is the center of their life. I love Facebook, but if I have kids one day, I want them to have the necessary social skills to interact with others in person, not just online.

Today I visited Myspace. Yes, Myspace, or as it is called today’s hip new english, “My_______.”

Remember it?

Remember My Chemical Romance playing amid a falling virtual snowstorm? And peace-signed, duck-faced selfies?

Today I visited, and today I come back to let you know what I found.

Continue reading →

Right as I was about to start writing this post, I just discovered one of the cooler things I have ever seen on Facebook.  A friend of mine from South Korea, who attends Princeton, posted something written in Korean on one of his friend’s walls that came up in my feed.  His post was written in Korean so obviously I couldn’t understand it, but right next to the characters was a link that said, “see translation” (translated by Bing). I just thought it was really cool how Facebook truly does connect people in so many ways, including connecting people who speak different languages. I’m sure many of you have already seen this cool function on Facebook, but I thought it was worth sharing.

Continue reading →

As Steven Schultz noted on the FRS 101 Facebook page, a recent study published last week in the journal Nature concluded that a Facebook message urging users to “Get Out the Vote” resulted in increased voter participation on Election Day 2010. On the day of congressional elections, most Facebook users were greeted with a message informing them that it was Election Day and providing them with information on local polling sites. It also displayed an “I Voted” button along with a count of how many total users had voted as well as images of Facebook friends who had already voted.

Continue reading →

This past Saturday during lunchtime, I had the pleasure of sharing a meal in the company of my new friend Charlie.  We carried out the awkward and now-exhausted series of questions that marginally count as a conversation between two freshman Princetonians; looking back, these were all tidbits I could have gleaned from Charlie’s Facebook profile, and he from mine.

We carried on the conversation-slash-interview as two chatty graduate students sat down beside us.  Without intention our conversations gradually merged, until the older students revealed that they had originally met as undergraduates at Harvard.  Charlie politely asked how their undergraduate experience was, and somewhere amidst the prattle about picking a major and being homesick, one of the students mentioned “that whole Zuckerberg-Facebook thing” from their freshman year.

Pause. Rewind. WHAT?!

Continue reading →

Launch a web browser today, and the first site you visit is most likely either Facebook or Google. Facebook is the king of social network; Google is the king of search. Their dominance in respective fields approaches monopoly, and the fact that these two Internet giants share a core revenue stream, ads, means the tension between them is higher than ever. In this blog post, I will discuss this tension in more detail. This post will be split into two parts. This first part will include the history of this tension and Google’s strategy to win this battle. The second part will contain Facebook’s strategy and how this battle will affect consumers in the end.

Continue reading →