Om farerne ved Facebook og Twitter mv

Cryptoparty handbook, kapitel 2:

Social Networking as we know it with FaceBook, Twitter (and earlier MySpace) are certainly far from ‘free’. Rather, these are businesses that seek to develop upon, and then exploit, a very basic anxiety: the fear of social irrelevance. As social animals we can’t bear the idea of missing out and so many find themselves placing their most intimate expressions onto a businessman’s hard-disk, buried deep in a data center in another country – one they will never be allowed to visit.

Despite this many would argue that the social warmth and personal validation acquired through engagement with Social Networks well out-weighs the potential loss of privacy. Such a statement however is only valid when the full extent of the risks are known.

The risks of Social Networking on a person’s basic right to privacy are defined by:

  • The scope and intimacy of the user’s individual contributions.
    • A user posting frequently and including many personal details constructs a body of information of greater use for targeted marketing.
  • The preparedness of the user to take social risks.
    • A user making social connections uncritically is at greater risk from predators and social engineering attacks.
  • The economic interests and partners of the organisation providing the service.
    • Commissioned studies from clients, data mining, sentiment analysis.
  • Political/legal demands exerted by the State against the organisation in the jurisdiction(s) in which it is resident.
    • Court orders for data on a particular user (whether civilian or foreigner).
    • Surveillance agendas by law enforcement or partners of the organisation.
    • Sentiment analysis: projections of political intent.

Problemet er måske størst ved Facebook, hvor nogle mennesker anbringer dokumentation for overraskende mængder af private forhold. Dette er ikke mindre alvorligt i betragtning af, at netop Facebook gang på gang har demonstreret, at de ikke er til at stole på, hvad diverse privatlivsindstillinger angår. Hvis du har ting og billeder på sådanne sider, som du ville have det dårligt med at alle kan se i morgen, når det private firma, der tjener penge på dig og dine data, har ændret reglerne, er det måske værd at overveje, hvor god en idé det er at have dem der.

Jeg bruger selv sociale medier, så det er ikke for at være hellig – men som med alt i dette liv er det en afvejning. Og du har aldrig kunnet forvente andet, end at i morgen kan enhver privatlivsbeskyttelse på sådanne sider være pist væk, og det kan måske have større konsekvenser, end de fleste lige gør sig klart.

Dette primært for lige at berøre et emne, vi formentlig ikke når at dække (i hvert fald ikke tilfredsstillende) til det kommende Cryptoparty på Hovedbiblioteket i Århus.

Facebook bortcensurerer britiske protestsider

Facebook har besluttet at fejre det kongelige bryllup i Storbritannien ved at slå ned på ytringsfriheden. Helt specifikt har Facebook netop 29. april besluttet at lukke mindst 50 politiske oppositionssider, skriver anticutsspace:

FB Broken
The Anti-Cuts Space London facebook group has been taken down without warning or permission. In the last 12 hours, facebook has deleted around 50 sites. Message people in extant groups to warn them, and tell them to get on your email list or twitter account instead. Screw you Zuckerberg.

FACEBOOK PAGES THAT HAVE BEEN DELETED IN THE LAST 12 HOURS:
Open Birkbeck, UWE Occupation, Chesterfield Stopthecuts, Camberwell AntiCuts, IVA Womensrevolution, Tower Hamlets Greens, No Cuts, ArtsAgainst Cuts, London Student Assembly, Beat’n Streets, Roscoe ‘Manchester’ Occupation, Bristol Bookfair, Newcastle Occupation, Socialist Unity, Whospeaks Forus, Ourland FreeLand, Bristol Ukuncut, Teampalestina Shaf, Notts-Uncut Part-of UKUncut, No Quarter Cutthewar, Bootle Labour, Claimants Fightback, Ecosocialists Unite, Comrade George Orwell, Jason Derrick, Anarchista Rebellionist, BigSociety Leeds, Slade Occupation, Anti-Cuts Across Wigan, Firstof Mayband, Don’t Break Britain United, Cockneyreject, SWP Cork, Westiminster Trades Council, York Anarchists, Rock War, Sheffield Occupation, Central London SWP, North London Solidarity, Southwark Sos, Save NHS, Rochdale Law Centre, Goldsmiths Fights Back

Hvorfor? Facebook vil åbenbart ikke længere tolerere ubekvem modstand mod regimet i Storbritannien; måske de har fået klager, eller også har de selv besluttet, at den slags politiske sider er “upassende” på en social hyggeside.

Set på Boing Boing, hvor Cory Doctorow advarer mod faren ved at satse for meget på Facebook  – især for politiske græsrodsbevægelser:

Facebook is not suited to the purpose of organizing political causes. It may be an easy place to mobilize people, but between its capricious management and the ease of mining it for social graphs, it is an authoritarian secret policeman’s best friend and a censor’s bosom buddy.

“Capricious” er nøgleordet her. Noget af det mest problemtiske ved Facebooks politiske censur er – ud over det simple faktum, at den er der – at den er så vilkårlig, for ikke at sige komplet uberegnelig. Alle græsrodssider kan potentielt være lukket i morgen, og det gør det svært at stole på den (indrømmet) potentielt set store gennemslagskraft, de faktisk kan have.

The dark side of Facebook

For fire år siden skrev han sådan her:

ZUCK: yea so if you ever need info about anyone at harvard
ZUCK: just ask
ZUCK: i have over 4000 emails, pictures, addresses, sns
FRIEND: what!? how’d you manage that one?
ZUCK: people just submitted it
ZUCK: i don’t know why
ZUCK: they “trust me”
ZUCK: dumb fucks

I dag ejer han Facebook.

Føler du, dine data er i gode hænder?