Which of Facebook's past or present privacy policies do you find to be the most troubling?
I was shocked after reading that Facebook had initiated a policy that allowed a company to follow and track the purchases made by the user. The Beacon program seems to violate so many privacy concerns. First off I think that tracking purchases from users is a great advantage to companies but can cause the user grief. For example, companies could use the information to trend purchases and then target ads to that particular person. Secondly, I think that as a consumer I would not appreciate each of my Facebook "friends" knowing each purchase I made. This is two fold one in which I may be purchasing an item for one of my "friends". Secondly I may not want one of my "friends" to know where I shop or items I choose to spend my money on. I can see why Facebook would get negative feedback. Facebook made a smart decision to stop the program.
- Michael LaPan, Adam Magiera
The policy that I find the most troubling is that Facebook has the ability to track what I do online, even if it is not on their website. I can understand that if I click that I like something on another website that it would show up on Facebook. But I do not like the fact that even if I don't click like that Facebook can still see what I am doing. I do not like the idea that a company is tracking what I am doing online and use it to make a profit when I am not doing it through their website. It would be a different story if they were tracking what I was doing on Facebook, but I don't think that they should be allowed to track my every movement on the web.
-Angela Goodro
Which ones are not a "big deal" in your estimation?
Facebook's decision to change its privacy settings is not a huge concern to me. In the electronic world much of this information is easily accessible. I think that many people often forget that when they put things online it is there forever. In addition, many times it is a person's "friends" who are posting pictures or information online which inadvertently can be seen by others. I can understand where someone would be alarmed by this change but given that the information is probably already accessible in other forms online it does not really concern me. I think it all boils down to people need to have common sense when dealing with information they post online. If you don't want the whole world to know it might be best NOT to document it online.
- Michael LaPan
To me, the News Feed feature is not that big of a deal to me. I like to be kept up to date with the things that my friends are doing, so the news feed feature is helpful to me. I also do not think that being tagged in a picture is not an issue. If I don't like the picture that I am tagged in, then I can just untag myself. I fully agree with Michael as well on the fact that if you don't want the world to know about something then you shouldn't put it on Facebook or the internet for that matter.
-Angela Goodro
Should social media sites be subject to more regulations to protect ensure the preservation of privacy rights?
I believe that more regulations should be placed on social media sites to protect their users privacy. This is because users often post things to social media sites without thinking about it being used for commercial purposes. For example while I rarely use Facebook and as such may just be out of the loop prior to reading this section I had never heard of the "instant personalization" scheme. This program gives Facebooks partner sites access to your information the moment you visit them without asking for your permission(Spinello p.187). Social media sites should be required to give clear and frequent warning to their users that anything they do on the site can be used for commercial means. Beyond clearly informing the visitor of this I do not believe other restrictions should be placed on the social media site as from then on responsibility fall on the sites user to protect their own privacy and know how much information is too much. This is because laws alone can not completely protect people's privacy, no amount of rules protecting people will protect them if they were to post all their personal information to a public area in a social media website such as facebook. For this reason I believe that rather than trying to restrict what the website can share the website users should be informed how it will be shared and make their own informed decision about what should and shouldn't be put online.
-James Hignite, Adam Magiera
According the New Natural Law theory life and health are one of the basic human goods essential to life. The right to privacy would fall under the right to life and health because "...privacy is a necessary condition for security, which is an aspect of the intrinsic goal of life and health, there must be a right to privacy and a correlative duty to safeguard that right". (Spinello p.166) When Facebook joined the Beacon program that exposed users online purchases to friends, that violated the users right to privacy which is unethical. I agree with Michael that it was a smart decision to end the program. Although Zuckerberg has made quite a few questionable decisions regarding privacy on Facebook, he does openly "encourage Facebook users to share their information in the spirit of openness and greater connectivity". (Spinello P. 188) I think that since he states the the views of Facebook as being open, if you don't want to join a social networking site that displays itself as open you shouldn't join in the first place. Also Facebook has changed privacy settings to the user having more control over what they share and who they share it with. I think it is Facebook's responsibility to make the settings easy and readily available to use, and the users responsibility to be aware and utilize the settings available.
-Kayla
Sources:
Facebook Privacy. N.d. Photograph. N.p. 28 Feb. 2014.<http://www.maclife.com/files/u220903/Facebook_privacy_380px.jpg>
Spinello, Richard A. Cyberethics: Morality and Law in Cyberspace. Boston: Jones and Bartlett, 2014. N. pag. Print.
I was shocked after reading that Facebook had initiated a policy that allowed a company to follow and track the purchases made by the user. The Beacon program seems to violate so many privacy concerns. First off I think that tracking purchases from users is a great advantage to companies but can cause the user grief. For example, companies could use the information to trend purchases and then target ads to that particular person. Secondly, I think that as a consumer I would not appreciate each of my Facebook "friends" knowing each purchase I made. This is two fold one in which I may be purchasing an item for one of my "friends". Secondly I may not want one of my "friends" to know where I shop or items I choose to spend my money on. I can see why Facebook would get negative feedback. Facebook made a smart decision to stop the program.
- Michael LaPan, Adam Magiera
The policy that I find the most troubling is that Facebook has the ability to track what I do online, even if it is not on their website. I can understand that if I click that I like something on another website that it would show up on Facebook. But I do not like the fact that even if I don't click like that Facebook can still see what I am doing. I do not like the idea that a company is tracking what I am doing online and use it to make a profit when I am not doing it through their website. It would be a different story if they were tracking what I was doing on Facebook, but I don't think that they should be allowed to track my every movement on the web.
-Angela Goodro
Which ones are not a "big deal" in your estimation?
Facebook's decision to change its privacy settings is not a huge concern to me. In the electronic world much of this information is easily accessible. I think that many people often forget that when they put things online it is there forever. In addition, many times it is a person's "friends" who are posting pictures or information online which inadvertently can be seen by others. I can understand where someone would be alarmed by this change but given that the information is probably already accessible in other forms online it does not really concern me. I think it all boils down to people need to have common sense when dealing with information they post online. If you don't want the whole world to know it might be best NOT to document it online.
- Michael LaPan
To me, the News Feed feature is not that big of a deal to me. I like to be kept up to date with the things that my friends are doing, so the news feed feature is helpful to me. I also do not think that being tagged in a picture is not an issue. If I don't like the picture that I am tagged in, then I can just untag myself. I fully agree with Michael as well on the fact that if you don't want the world to know about something then you shouldn't put it on Facebook or the internet for that matter.
-Angela Goodro
Should social media sites be subject to more regulations to protect ensure the preservation of privacy rights?
I believe that more regulations should be placed on social media sites to protect their users privacy. This is because users often post things to social media sites without thinking about it being used for commercial purposes. For example while I rarely use Facebook and as such may just be out of the loop prior to reading this section I had never heard of the "instant personalization" scheme. This program gives Facebooks partner sites access to your information the moment you visit them without asking for your permission(Spinello p.187). Social media sites should be required to give clear and frequent warning to their users that anything they do on the site can be used for commercial means. Beyond clearly informing the visitor of this I do not believe other restrictions should be placed on the social media site as from then on responsibility fall on the sites user to protect their own privacy and know how much information is too much. This is because laws alone can not completely protect people's privacy, no amount of rules protecting people will protect them if they were to post all their personal information to a public area in a social media website such as facebook. For this reason I believe that rather than trying to restrict what the website can share the website users should be informed how it will be shared and make their own informed decision about what should and shouldn't be put online.
-James Hignite, Adam Magiera
According the New Natural Law theory life and health are one of the basic human goods essential to life. The right to privacy would fall under the right to life and health because "...privacy is a necessary condition for security, which is an aspect of the intrinsic goal of life and health, there must be a right to privacy and a correlative duty to safeguard that right". (Spinello p.166) When Facebook joined the Beacon program that exposed users online purchases to friends, that violated the users right to privacy which is unethical. I agree with Michael that it was a smart decision to end the program. Although Zuckerberg has made quite a few questionable decisions regarding privacy on Facebook, he does openly "encourage Facebook users to share their information in the spirit of openness and greater connectivity". (Spinello P. 188) I think that since he states the the views of Facebook as being open, if you don't want to join a social networking site that displays itself as open you shouldn't join in the first place. Also Facebook has changed privacy settings to the user having more control over what they share and who they share it with. I think it is Facebook's responsibility to make the settings easy and readily available to use, and the users responsibility to be aware and utilize the settings available.
-Kayla
Sources:
Facebook Privacy. N.d. Photograph. N.p. 28 Feb. 2014.<http://www.maclife.com/files/u220903/Facebook_privacy_380px.jpg>
Spinello, Richard A. Cyberethics: Morality and Law in Cyberspace. Boston: Jones and Bartlett, 2014. N. pag. Print.
I agree that social media outlets should be under more scrutiny, what would you propose so that the consumer has more protection?
ReplyDeleteI'm not really sure what I would propose so that the consumer has more protection. From my own experience on the internet, most websites are more concerned about protecting themselves rather than the consumers that use them. A good place to start would be to start allowing consumers to pick and choose what information the company/website can share/sell about them.
DeleteGood job Group 2 presenting on Facebook's privacy policies and of working through New Natural Law Theory to assess these policies.
ReplyDeleteDo you think that the idea that "if you don't want your privacy violated, don't post online" is really fair in the contemporary internet age?
Similarly, if Facebook is becoming more and more embedded into websites outside of Facebook, is Zuckerberg's "if you don't like it, don't use it" idea really an adequate response to privacy concerns?
I do think the idea of not posting online if you don't want privacy invaded is fair to an extent. Most people that use the internet and social networking sites are aware of what you post online, stays online whether you delete it or not. I think it is the users responsibility to be aware of what they are posting and the privacy settings they have in place for others to see. At the same time, because Facebook is involved in other websites, the idea of "if you don't like it, don't use it" is not really a good approach regarding privacy. There are many apps and games on phones that to even play you have to sign up through Facebook and give consent for that app to go through your profile and friends list and to post to your timeline.You can choose opt out of the privacy invasion, or not play the game. I think that it is both the users and Facebook's responsibility to protect privacy, by the user being aware of what they post and the audience that can see it, and by Facebook making privacy settings easy to use and understand.
DeleteWhen you put it that way, no, I don't think that it is really fair in the contemporary internet age. A person could never touch the internet in their entire life and still have loads of things posted about them online. I do however think that people need to be more cautious about what they do post online.
DeleteZuckerberg's response about not using something that you don't like is pretty unreasonable when Facebook is starting to creep into everything else on the web.
I agree if you don't want people to know anything then you shouldn't post it on the internet. Good job on your blog.
ReplyDeleteI think most of the theories were violated with what Facebook was allowing since most of the theories are based on ethics being good when they are based on the greatest good for the mass majority but to me the only ones that benefited from Facebooks sell out of data was them and the companies paying them.
ReplyDeleteGroup 2, was there anything stated under the terms and conditions for users of Facebook which allowed Facebook to pass purchasing tracking to other companies?
ReplyDeleteWhen I looked I did not see anything regarding tracking purchases made and then passing them onto other companies. I looked in the terms and conditions and the data use policy. There was a lot about how they can use your information but not personally you to send targeted ads.
DeleteCan't a Facebook user use the privacy settings to prevent their data from being used by companies? I agree that they shouldn't be tracking things you are doing on other websites as you aren't trying to share that data so it shouldn't be any business of Facebook.
ReplyDeleteI actually had to look at the privacy settings in order to answer this. From what I've seen a person cannot prevent their data from being used by companies. The terms and conditions state that they won't use any information collected about you without removing any personal identifiers first, but I don't know how true that is. When a person signs up for Facebook, they are giving them the right to collect any information about the person that Facebook wants to.
DeleteI too do not want Facebook to be able to track what Iam doing on other web site. Keeping up with what I am doing, buying,or looking for on the web. I am not a person who buy because I seen ad on the web, so they can stop with pop up ads to try to get me to buy.
ReplyDeleteNo matter what you put on the internet it is viewable. All websites protect themselves not customers
ReplyDelete