Facebook and privacy once again made headlines this week, with the social computing provider’s revamped privacy settings. Yet, per experts in digital civil liberties, these latest changes will only push more user data onto the Internet and, in some cases, make privacy protection harder for Facebook users. For privacy, this represents two steps forward, one (possibly two) step back. The question remains, “Does anyone care?”
The web crowd has made an industry out of ignoring the privacy, instead leaving the matter to the service providers for whom they have built out today’s social computing platforms. Yet, ignoring it has failed to make it go away. With Google tracking one’s online behaviour to target online advertisments, controlling a large amount of what is seen online through its search results, amassing the largest library in recent history, owning huge share of the online video market; recording one’s voice, voicemail and SMS messages; and offering a wide range of services that bring more and more daily online habits into its online sphere, the company alone has access to the daily habits of their users.
Amongst continued attention to the misuse of social computing, one can more easily encounter people who still blithely trust providers with their privacy. Although with a little insight, one can easily understand why some providers dismiss privacy concerns entirely, it is far more curious that users en masse have agreed with such dismissals.
In a CNBC interview, Google CEO Eric Schmidt explained his stance on online privacy "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place. If you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines --including Google --do retain this information for some time and it's important, for example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act and it is possible that all that information could be made available to the authorities."
The problem with that point of view is that it assumes one can only be concerned about privacy when they are doing something illegal or unethical. For those with limited historical or cultural literacy, the first thing they may want to learn is that laws can change, and not necessarily in an ethical, moral or logical manner. Some of the 20th century’s greatest atrocities were deemed “legal” by the regimes that committed them. Believing “it can never happen here” (wherever that may be) doesn’t ensure such atrocities cannot be repeated. On a more mundane level, prohibiting discrimination based on gender, race, orientation or religious beliefs (or lack thereof) does not prevent it from occurring; and rights that have been extended to groups outside what “the majority” may consider “traditional” or “mainstream” can be easily repealed and rolled back (take California’s Prop 8, for instance). To anyone with any depth of historical or cultural understanding, laws are a frightening fluid and mutable construct. Blind faith in any legal system has only led to tears.
It also completely ignores that information involved with legal and ethical behaviour can be abused in many ways. Knowing a person’s near-real-time location combined with their home address, occupation, family, and all these imply, leaves that person and/or their loved ones vulnerable to various crimes. People too often open themselves to such vulnerability by providing basic information.
Thirdly, this doesn't take into consideration the myriad ways that data can be inadvertently leaked or compromised by search engines like Google, or social networks like Facebook. Just because people want information to be private, it doesn't mean that they are trying to hide anything like shady activity. It simply means that some information is sensitive or confidential, and for a reason.
For businesses that rely on the public cloud, there is a level of trust there that provider will respect the privacy of that data and protect it from unauthorized access. Comments like those made by Schmidt provide another reason to think twice about using public cloud for any sensitive or confidential communications.
More providers are privy to a great deal of information which could be used to reach conclusions. Whilst it is important for them to take privacy seriously, it is far more important for users to understand what they are getting into with such services.
Service Level Agreements - the fine print of the cloud, web and social computing - are only beginning to receive the attention they deserve. “Just trust me”, “Don’t be evil”, and “50 million people use this service” mean little when one’s privacy is invaded, and that information abused to engage in nefarious behaviour ranging from unethical to criminal activity. The fine print in important, and one can choose services that meet required levels or privacy, or simply choose not to use a category where none are to be found.
Whether one believes they have information of which they should have privacy concerns, they do regardless. Not every service endeavours to protect users’ privacy, who are better served by a realistic attitude to concerns than by blithely trusting providers to do what’s right. The approach that unless one wears a tinfoil hat or has terrorist connections, they have no right to be concerned about privacy - "cheer up love, it might never happen" - has no place in an increasingly networked world.
