There's a big concern these days, especially amongst college students, about how the use of social networking sites like facebook, myspace, and blogger, will affect a users ability to get a job, or maintain a job: we've all seen stories in the media about people who have been fired for the content of their Facebook page or their Blog. For younger kids (I mean high school and on down mostly) the concerns of a career search seem far removed from the more immediate concern of fitting in, and certainly the same can be said about many college students (even me). For many college students, who are the main users of Facebook (and its intended audience), those concerns are less distant, especially when the student hits junior year and realizes "oh crap... i'll need to start job hunting in a few MONTHS." The student can then find themselves in a panicked race to erase any negative online presence that they may not wish for an employer to see.
Why are employers so worried about peoples Facebooks, and blogs? The answer to that has a few different parts. One is that employers want to look to gauge what kind of person you are, and if your even worth the interview (hint: if your FB has pictures of you smoking a j and trying to blow smoke rings, you're not worth the interview); for example, if your blog contains extremely left wing political comments, then you might not be right for a job at Fox News. Another would be to see whether or not your an idiot (by idiot i mean someone who is less capable of doing a good job, because they just don't get the proverbial it). An employer assumes that you know they might look at your Facebook, therefor if you didn't take the time, or care to make sure it was presentable then you are an idiot, and not someone to hire. Which brings to the moral of the story: If you don't want your boss (or future boss to see it) then don't put out there in the first place, and if you did then take it down (NOW)!
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
O Brother, Where Art Thou?
Traditionally the U.S. government has taken a very hands off approach with regards to the internet and privacy, with their actions largely being limited to issues concerning children under the age of thirteen, hoping not to stifle new innovations that would jeopardize the U.S.'s ability to dominate the technology market (such dominance has provided huge prosperity for us). However, as the technologies progress so too do the risks to our privacy, and it's no secret that data mining is becoming an increasingly profitable business, as well as an increasingly invasive one.
For some time there has been a need for the government to step up and and at least enact some basic privacy protection laws to regulate the trade in information about internet users online behavior. These laws/standards don't need to be so overbearing that they might stifle innovation, but they should provide a standard of what is and is not acceptable behavior (on the part data miners), and provide some system (like SEC) to ensure that companies are following the rules. Some politicians and personalities, mostly right wingers who are concerned with growing government power (and some on the left concerned with regulation of freedoms of speech) have opposed internet regulation. The simple fact of the matter is that whether you agree or disagree with regulations, there is nothing you can do (unless you posses considerable computer skills or specialized software) to completely protect your privacy because most of the decisions about it aren't made by you, but by companies outside of your control (you probably don't even know they exists). And lets face it; if it comes down to choosing between your privacy or money in the bank most executives are choosing a new Ferrari, and what's to stop them you don't even know they're doing it (answer= nothing).
Its not all bad news though. The Obama administration has taken that important first step in calling for this new type of regulation, which would include an "internet users bill of rights." Their plans, which have apparently taken a back seat to the recession (and anything else), would include passing basic privacy laws, and establishing a watchdog office to ensure that regulations are being followed, and even the possible required installation of a do-not-track feature on browsers.
For some time there has been a need for the government to step up and and at least enact some basic privacy protection laws to regulate the trade in information about internet users online behavior. These laws/standards don't need to be so overbearing that they might stifle innovation, but they should provide a standard of what is and is not acceptable behavior (on the part data miners), and provide some system (like SEC) to ensure that companies are following the rules. Some politicians and personalities, mostly right wingers who are concerned with growing government power (and some on the left concerned with regulation of freedoms of speech) have opposed internet regulation. The simple fact of the matter is that whether you agree or disagree with regulations, there is nothing you can do (unless you posses considerable computer skills or specialized software) to completely protect your privacy because most of the decisions about it aren't made by you, but by companies outside of your control (you probably don't even know they exists). And lets face it; if it comes down to choosing between your privacy or money in the bank most executives are choosing a new Ferrari, and what's to stop them you don't even know they're doing it (answer= nothing).
Its not all bad news though. The Obama administration has taken that important first step in calling for this new type of regulation, which would include an "internet users bill of rights." Their plans, which have apparently taken a back seat to the recession (and anything else), would include passing basic privacy laws, and establishing a watchdog office to ensure that regulations are being followed, and even the possible required installation of a do-not-track feature on browsers.
Who's That Creepin In My Window????
How do companies get information about our online activities, and what are they doing with it?
The primary way in which a company gathers data about your online activity is by using a bit of software called a "cookie" which is automatically inserted on your computer by your browser when you visit a site. Don't freak out yet. Cookies are arguably the most important component of internet browsing after the browser itself. There are thousands of different cookies out there and they are used for a variety of reasons ranging from storing your password on Gmail, and keeping track of what's in your shopping cart on overstock.com to tracking your purchases for advertising and marketing purposes, as well as occasionally acting as spyware and stealing your banking info. So before we condemn cookies as the evil tools of giant corporations it is important to state that without cookies the internet would pretty much suck, as cookie technology is basically what makes function. However, for all the benefits of using cookie technology, there is downside. There are literally hundreds, maybe thousands, of companies using this technology to compile massive amounts of information about us and our online behavior, and then selling that information for a profit.
Why do they want this info? In most cases it's just companies who want to sell you stuff, or simply to keep track of what parts of their website are the most popular. And as long as there is a market for this type of info, information companies will want to collect it so that they can sell it to the marketers who will use it.
On any given website, with the exception of a few highly secure and privacy oriented ones (www.cia.gov for example), there are tacking cookies examining and storing the details of your online behavior, and there is no rule (in the u.s.) saying that the information collected has to be protected other than a companies desire to protect profits (also much of this information is personally identifiable). For example: I just visited walmart.com and was tracked by four different companies employed by walmart to provide them with intelligence about customers online shopping behavior, preferences, and ease of use (info from Ghostery.com).
These practices don't necessarily constitute invasive behavior on the part of companies who use these tools, but they do provide a reason for concern. The massive amounts of data gathered by these companies may never really go away, and that fact will always carry with it concerns about potential surreptitious uses.
The primary way in which a company gathers data about your online activity is by using a bit of software called a "cookie" which is automatically inserted on your computer by your browser when you visit a site. Don't freak out yet. Cookies are arguably the most important component of internet browsing after the browser itself. There are thousands of different cookies out there and they are used for a variety of reasons ranging from storing your password on Gmail, and keeping track of what's in your shopping cart on overstock.com to tracking your purchases for advertising and marketing purposes, as well as occasionally acting as spyware and stealing your banking info. So before we condemn cookies as the evil tools of giant corporations it is important to state that without cookies the internet would pretty much suck, as cookie technology is basically what makes function. However, for all the benefits of using cookie technology, there is downside. There are literally hundreds, maybe thousands, of companies using this technology to compile massive amounts of information about us and our online behavior, and then selling that information for a profit.
Why do they want this info? In most cases it's just companies who want to sell you stuff, or simply to keep track of what parts of their website are the most popular. And as long as there is a market for this type of info, information companies will want to collect it so that they can sell it to the marketers who will use it.
On any given website, with the exception of a few highly secure and privacy oriented ones (www.cia.gov for example), there are tacking cookies examining and storing the details of your online behavior, and there is no rule (in the u.s.) saying that the information collected has to be protected other than a companies desire to protect profits (also much of this information is personally identifiable). For example: I just visited walmart.com and was tracked by four different companies employed by walmart to provide them with intelligence about customers online shopping behavior, preferences, and ease of use (info from Ghostery.com).
These practices don't necessarily constitute invasive behavior on the part of companies who use these tools, but they do provide a reason for concern. The massive amounts of data gathered by these companies may never really go away, and that fact will always carry with it concerns about potential surreptitious uses.
Privacy?
Do I really have a right to privacy on the internet, and if so, then where?
This isn't the first time we've had this debate. When video surveillance cameras began to gain popularity this debate was front and center. Many people found this new technology to be an egregious breach of their right to privacy; the idea of being watched constantly, and that the video was being stored made people uncomfortable. But as the debate found it's way into the courts it was eventually decided that in a public space like Wal-mart, or a connivence store, there was no breach of privacy because there is reasonable expectation of privacy in such a public space.
The real, fundamental question is... what is the difference between the internet and the so called "real space," and where might I have a reasonable expectation of privacy online?
To answer that, let me first say that there seems to be a tendency among people to think of the internet as some kind of pseudo-real space; that is to say that using the internet is fundamentally different than walking down the street to go to wal-mart. But is it really that different, and does the fact that I never left my house provide a reasonable expectation of privacy? The truth is it's a complicated issue, and I think the argument could go either way, but in most cases we probably do not have an inherent right to privacy on the internet just because we're on the internet. The reason we do not is because the internet is not a pseudo-real space, it's a very real space with addresses, property rights, and even physical space (even if it is located on hard drive). Why is going to walmart.com different from going to the walmart down the street. Walmart certainly keeps detailed records about how many people come to their stores and what they buy, and even who buys what; that type of information is immensely valuable to marketers, and is the reason that the whole data mining phenomena exists. I would say that just as walmart has the right to video tape you and to store information about your behavior in their "real space" stores, so do they also have the right to record and store information about you (or in this case your computer) and your behavior in their online space as well.
But collecting the information isn't the only thing happening, some companies also sell our information. In regards to this we may have a reason to expect privacy regardless of whether that information was gathered online or in "real space."
People need to adjust their perception of the internet, and cyberspace in general. The idea that i have a right to privacy just because my physical person never left the house (a place where you certainly do have a reasonable expectation of privacy) is foolish one. The internet is always a public space (because the internet is nothing but a system of INTERCONNECTED computers). Our online activities are no more private than our offline activities, they are just easier to track.
This isn't the first time we've had this debate. When video surveillance cameras began to gain popularity this debate was front and center. Many people found this new technology to be an egregious breach of their right to privacy; the idea of being watched constantly, and that the video was being stored made people uncomfortable. But as the debate found it's way into the courts it was eventually decided that in a public space like Wal-mart, or a connivence store, there was no breach of privacy because there is reasonable expectation of privacy in such a public space.
The real, fundamental question is... what is the difference between the internet and the so called "real space," and where might I have a reasonable expectation of privacy online?
To answer that, let me first say that there seems to be a tendency among people to think of the internet as some kind of pseudo-real space; that is to say that using the internet is fundamentally different than walking down the street to go to wal-mart. But is it really that different, and does the fact that I never left my house provide a reasonable expectation of privacy? The truth is it's a complicated issue, and I think the argument could go either way, but in most cases we probably do not have an inherent right to privacy on the internet just because we're on the internet. The reason we do not is because the internet is not a pseudo-real space, it's a very real space with addresses, property rights, and even physical space (even if it is located on hard drive). Why is going to walmart.com different from going to the walmart down the street. Walmart certainly keeps detailed records about how many people come to their stores and what they buy, and even who buys what; that type of information is immensely valuable to marketers, and is the reason that the whole data mining phenomena exists. I would say that just as walmart has the right to video tape you and to store information about your behavior in their "real space" stores, so do they also have the right to record and store information about you (or in this case your computer) and your behavior in their online space as well.
But collecting the information isn't the only thing happening, some companies also sell our information. In regards to this we may have a reason to expect privacy regardless of whether that information was gathered online or in "real space."
People need to adjust their perception of the internet, and cyberspace in general. The idea that i have a right to privacy just because my physical person never left the house (a place where you certainly do have a reasonable expectation of privacy) is foolish one. The internet is always a public space (because the internet is nothing but a system of INTERCONNECTED computers). Our online activities are no more private than our offline activities, they are just easier to track.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)