A Little Less Information, A Little More Privacy Please.
How Does Social Networking Sites (SNS) Affect Web-Based Privacy And Data Security?
Defined as the second phase of the World Wide Web, Web 2.0 provides a space for consumer and contributor content, promoting collaboration between all participants (Grandison 2014; O’Reilly & Musser 2007). The enhanced capabilities of Web 2.0, has allowed for the development of new technologies and applications that facilitate mass participation, such as online social networking sites (SNS). SNS represent a fast growing phenomenon, with social media applications such as Facebook, Snapchat, and Twitter, experiencing exponential growth in membership (Acquisti & Gross 2006). The services provide a new range of opportunities for communication and a real-time exchange of user-generated content, which are both an integral part and an extension of our real-world selves (Grandison 2014). Social Media, although it has many benefits, comes with strong concerns for web-based privacy and data security (Acquisti & Gross 2006). This is because SNS provides a sense of intimacy in being able to communicate and maintain relationships. Therefore users are more willing to reveal personal information. The right of mandating privacy has been raised, which focuses on concerns for data storing, re-purposing, distribution to third parties, and displaying of information pertaining to oneself on the Internet. When using data from SNS, a standard of what constitutes informed consent has not been well established within the research community (Rhodes, Bowie & Hergenrather 2003). Users share a diverse range of information on SNS, which record interactions with the potential for social-data mining (Fayyad, Piatetsky-Shapiro & Smyth 1996). In privacy as subject we allocate a more or less active role to the user. The user is considered as the controlling force on who can and cannot view their personal information (Heyman , De Wolf & Pierson 2014). However, very little protection exists at present, against copying any kind of personal data, allowing for unwarranted access to private information that can be used or sold for other purposes not intended by the user, #dataprivacy.
Users generating content aim to create an identity as described in privacy as a subject. However, by revealing personal information, the data becomes publicly available in an unprecedented way and extent. Once published, personal data can be manipulated and distributed, increasing the likelihood of public scrutiny towards online personas and pose potential harm to physical safety by disclosing personal information (Cain 2008). In the SNS environment, social threats are seen to be rising, through active or passive use of the service (Heyman, et al. 2014). It is possible for information to be passed on without a user’s consent, as they cannot control what other users reveal about them. Typical examples involve cyber bullying or access to an unappealing photo. Due to the nature of Facebook, personal and uniquely identified profiles can pose a great threat to safety, as the platform can by default provide contact information and further data not readily available elsewhere on the internet (Acquisti & Gross 2006). The potential threat of privacy is generally overlooked or ignored by SNS users. Data collection is achievable, as security, access and privacy controls are insufficient on SNS, thus easier to identify points of contact or passwords to access confidential information (Ho, Maiga & Aimeur 2009). To protect against the transmission of confidential information from third parties, encryption is used to protect responses to online questionnaire or credit card details, but cannot protect the respondent’s IP address (Rhodes, et al. 2003). This threatens privacy and anonymity of users, as “hackers” through visited sites can determine respondent’s IP addresses. This can be relatively problematic depending on the type of information retrieved, but in all cases is still a breach of privacy, #needforprivacy.
The Internet has vastly expanded the scope of data collection, presenting higher commercial value for the platform providers. This is due to online profiles becoming inextricably linked to a user’s real-world self. The transitions of real-world equivalent activities are emerging online, presenting as a default interaction method (Grandison 2014). This presents an organisational threat to users, as personal information is being distributed or sold by SNS providers to third party developers. Such companies engage in data mining; a tool used for deriving knowledge out of databases (Fayyad, et al. 1996). Essentially, data mining is using personal data as a commodity to produce sellable segments for commercial purposes. The tool is used to build comprehensive profiles of each user, in order to target specific demographics, or even specific users. The tool can be seen to objectify individuals and their data profiles, as the data being recorded is de-contextualises and without meaning (Heyman, et al. 2014). By accumulating personal data, consumer profiles can be more finely targeted. Facebook insists that advertisement will become relevant to consumers as a result of distributing data (Sengupta 2013). However, the impact data collection has on privacy is disconcerting. SNS can carry a code that enables social-networking companies to track users’ movements, even without permission (The Economist 2014). Although data collection is anonymous, there is concern that the information might be traced to individuals. Given enough information is attached to cookies and devices, anonymous data sets can be known. Research indicates that with segmentation of data becoming highly specialised, the possibility of identifying more than half the users can be achieved by examining only two data sets (The Economist 2014).
Online privacy and security is a shared responsibility, #ittakestwo. Personal protection from social and organisational threats is possible, but can only minimise the inevitable. The information provided even on seemingly private SNS is still public data, which could endure if maintained (Acquisti & Gross 2006). Therefore, it is vital to reconsider what is shared online, as the digital footprint will remain in affect regardless of if information is confidential or poses the potential for public scrutiny (Magid 2013). It is suggested that online privacy settings and passwords should be revisited to alter profile visibility in order to control the circulation of content and protect private information (Islam & Al-Saggaf 2012; Magid 2013). This can protect against malicious intentions and data mining from third party developers (Islam & Al-Saggaf 2012). It is also important to only provide personal information to trusted organisations and SNS to retain anonymity or confidentiality (Magid 2013). However, the problem also rests on SNS providers to disclose any potential privacy or security threats, further adhering to SNS policies and state how data is stored, re-purposed, distributed to third parties, and how personal information is displayed on the Internet.
Since the introduction of SNS, millions of users have been attracted to the service (Acquisti & Gross 2006). As SNS provides an established place for collaboration of content and communication, there are numerous interactions between users, resulting in large quantities of information circulating on SNS (Ho, et al. 2009). A consequence of this is that private data can be distributed or manipulated by unauthorised users. There are currently no solutions to solve the flexibility of privacy, security and access controls, as well as what constitutes consent (Ho, et al. 2009; Rhodes, et al. 2003). The problem lies in the foundation of SNS, where the current focus is on the interaction and sharing of information rather than on user privacy, #makeprivacyprivate.
· Acquisti, & Gross, 2006, 'Imagined Communities: Awareness, Information Sharing, and Privacy on the Facebook', in Privacy Enhancing Technologies, Cambridge, UK.
· Cain, J 2008, 'Online Social Networking Issues Within Academia and Pharmacy Education', American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, vol 72, no. 1, pp. 1-10.
· Fayyad, , Piatetsky-Shapiro, & Smyth, 1996, 'From Data Mining to Knowledge Discovery in Databases', American Association for Artificial Intelligence, vol 17, pp. 37-54.
· Grandison, T 2014, 'Security and Privacy in Web 2.0', Proficiency Labs International, IEEE Computer Society.
· Heyman , R, De Wolf , R & Pierson , 2014, 'Evaluating social media privacy settings for personal and advertising purposes', Emerald Insight , vol 16, pp. 18 - 32.
· Ho, A, Maiga, & Aimeur, 2009, 'Privacy protection issues in social networking sites', International Conference on Computer Systems and Applications, IEEE.
· Islam, MZ & Al-Saggaf, Y 2012, 'Privacy in Social Network Sites (SNS): The threats from data mining', Ethical Space: The International Journal of Communication Ethics, vol 9, no. 4, pp. 32- 40.
· Magid, L 2013, 'Online Privacy and Security is a Shared Responsibility: Government, Industry and You', Forbes, 12 Feb 2013, viewed 2 Sep 2016, <http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrymagid/2013/02/12/online-privacy-and-security-is-a-shared-responsibility-government-industry-and-you/#163199a63439>.
· O’Reilly, T & Musser, J 2007, Web 2.0 Principles and Best Practices, O'Reilly Media.
· Rhodes, SD, Bowie, DA & Hergenrather, KC 2003, 'Collecting behavioural data using the world wide web: considerations for researchers', Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, vol 57, pp. 68–73.
· Sengupta, S 2013, 'What You Didn’t Post, Facebook May Still Know', The New York Times, 25 March 2013, viewed 31 August 2016, <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/26/technology/facebook-expands-targeted-advertising-through-outside-data-sources.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0>.
· The Economist 2014, 'Getting to know you', The Economist, 13 Sep 2014, viewed 1 Sep 2016, <http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21615871-everything-people-do-online-avidly-followed-advertisers-and-third-party>.
yousharknotpass
turnnoffyourmind
janainaart
areudirty
origamiaround
theartofmadeline
dededos