Tinfoil Hats: Privacy Haute Couture

The tinfoil hat is the hallmark of a conspiracy theorist. With the background-level paranoia surrounding the Facebook privacy settings, I'm considering making one myself. The designer ones are such a rip off. Old-school conspiracy theorists believed that the government had a file on absolutely everyone, kept somewhere like Area 52.

Area 51 is for amateurs.

But now we willingly upload a whole heap of stuff willingly, free to be perused by just about everyone. The government doesn't have to do a thing: its all there - tagged, bagged and open for business. And people complain about privacy? Facebook isn't exactly the digital equivalent of a Swiss bank. My account got hacked the other day. Luckily my Facebook account doesn't include any vital information, like my bank account details. But I'm broke anyway, so that doesn't matter.

Privacy isn't a right - it's a strategy. Look at your Facebook privacy settings: they're not sophisticated but they work well enough. If you don't want to be tagged in embarrassing photos, change your settings! Or untag yourself. If you don't want to have your Mum or your boss finding out about that guy/girl/??? you woke up next to in bed last Saturday, don't add them! Or don't post about it, either works. Your profile only has as much stuff as you put in it. Yes, you can find out who's been looking at your profile but unless you're particularly paranoid, it doesn't matter that much.

If a teenager can hack into the Pentagon mainframe, Facebook doesn't stand a damn chance. When you close your profile, just ask them to wipe your info. You do have a right to do that. Same applies to MySpace, which is like the AUT of social networking.

Like I said, privacy is a strategy. Everyone has a digital footprint, and some people have bigger shoes than others. If you don't want people to tread on your private little Facebook toes, don't give them the opportunity to.

Personally, I wear heels.

Why SNS?

There are many different social network sites out there by now and more people starting every day. Suddenly, I was wondering why more and more people join social network sites such as Facebook, MySpace, Orkut and Hi5 and so on. What do people get out of them? The main reason joining the social network sites would be that people can meet and find new friends. Everyone in SNS can browse the network and meet new people from all over the world. According to Dunbar, chatting and socializing in humans is similar to physical grooming in ape wild world. 'Language is much more efficient than physical grooming for one can talk to several people at once. Also, language helps people learn about cultural norms, evaluate others' behavior and keep up with the news and shifting opinions of their surrounding community. '(Dunbar, 1996) People say “hello” to their neighbors, ask how they're doing and share their common interests and news. So people can create social bonds. Moreover, SNS enables people to strengthen and maintain their relationships with friends.

I have an account with facebook. As my experience, Facebook is sort of a current affairs site where latest news and events are updated at all times. I want to know what happened to my friends and don’t want to miss out. So I view the posting and commenting on status reports wall. Especially, I have many friends who live in different country. It is hard to meet and have a chat on msn or any other instant messages because we all have time difference. So we normally leave the messages and commenting on facebook. To me, SNSs like facebook help me out to keep in touch regularly with my friends who live in different country.

Now people can do so much more with a SNS than just meet people and send messages. People add videos, listen to their favourite music and find old friends. Also, SNS let people share or promote their business, individual talents and help with a problem and ones’ concerns on a condition they may have. To sum up, I think people will get a friendship, networking and a sense of belonging out of SNS. Therefore, more people will join social network sites.

Facebook - The Future of Gaming?

Casual browser based gaming has become more widespread and normal thanks to Social networking sites such as Facebook. I recall when I was in college, playing browser based games seemed kinda "geeky" if you will; of course the Internet was fairly new around that point in time and not everyone at school had it, and if you did, you were often on a horrendous 56K dial up connection.

Now with the easy access to broadband Internet, more faster paced games could take place. Giving rise to Mega Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games or MMORPG's for short, and since these games required multiple players, social networking sites could be seen as a no-brainer move. I'd actually go out on a limb here and predict that as long as Facebook stays around, game developers will shift their resources into the online arena. Not only will there be more people playing their games, but the revenues will be higher and a more constant stream.

Think of it this way, say EA (a major game developer) puts out a game similar to Farmville (hypothetically speaking), the game will require time to develop for various platforms it is to be sold on (such as PS3, Xbox, Xbox 360, Wii, etc...), after that, it will require money to market the game, it will need to be distributed internationally via freight of some sort and if it's lucky, the game may have a [physical] shelf life of maybe a couple of years and then after that, it will cease to make money for EA. Compare this to actual Farmville, developed for one platform (Facebook, though it could be on other SNS that I'm unaware of), marketing is done pretty much through word of mouth via Facebook, distribution is via Internet and doesn't take space on a shelf, so it will be around indefinitely (or as long as Facebook retains its user base), continuous updates can be made to the game to take advantage of real world changes, promotions and the like. Therefore, the game can continue to bring in money for the developer more long term.

In fact, according to Gamepro, many big names in the console/PC gaming industry such as Sid Meier are expressing interest in exploiting this potential lucrative market. Just as Napstar, Kazaa, p2p file sharing & Apple iPods & iTunes have changed and shifted the music industry complicating the financial survival of physical stores such as Real Groovy, the same could happen to game developers such as Take Two Interactive, EA Games & Activision thanks to Facebook.

social network site

We are living in the 21st century where communicating between one another has developed to an extent that people regard it as a norm in society. From mobile phones to chatting on the net.

These days social network sites such as MySpace and facebook has become a space where people engage with their friends and uploading and sharing of files such as music which they like and putting up photos of themselves and commenting on each other’s web pages.

It seems as though that most students have an account with facebook these days and that it seems like it has become a main plat form for social networking sites. When you go to Kate level 0 or level 2 to use a computer, u always see people logged on to facebook and this gives you a impression how big the social networking sites have become in the society of today.

Sense of belonging to one another, gossiping, sharing and keeping in touch is one of many reasons that contribute to the use of facebook by the users. One could argue that it has become something that is hard to live without as facebook has become something that is part of the identity of the user. It represents user from the offline to the online world and you can argue how the offline identities of the user can transfer to the online world and with the use of facebook it can be argued that it’s a possible thing.

There is an argument of how these social networking sites make people to interact with each other in the online world and how it can reduce real life communication in the real world but I believe it is not a point that needs to be taken into consideration.

Facebook: The Ultimate Social Networking Site

Facebook since its inception has revolutionized the landscape which is social networking. It is arguably at the forefront of a consumer driven force whose sole purpose is to connect with friends and relatives whom are scattered across the globe. It has ultimately turned Mark Zuckerberg, its founder, into a household name and also has made him one of if not the youngest multi-billionaires in the world.

Facebook's main purpose is that of virtual social interaction and also that of social sharing i.e. that sharing of photos and videos. It allows users to update a variety of information unique to the individual which in-turn sets them apart from others whom they are associated with.

What I find fascinating and comforting about Facebook the most is the option to make everything you share private and only available to a select group of people of your choosing. This is what, in my opinion, sets it apart from other social networking sites. Although other social networking sites such as Bebo and Myspace do give users this choice it is not to the varying extent that Facebook does which, in my opinion, makes it appealing to a wider demographic.

Unlike a lot of other social networking sites like Bebo, Facebook attracts a sub-culture of gamers by allowing users of the site access to a variety of applications which not only allow users to play out various scenarios but also allow users to at the same time to communicate and work with their friends and relatives to progress to varying levels which leads to the unlocking of specialized items only available to people who do so. Farmville, a Facebook application, without a doubt has become a phenomenom of sorts as it gives users the chance to awaken their creative side by creating and managing a virtual farm capable of growing crops, nurturing farm animals and also to build buildings which come in handy at various points throughout the applications progression. It is the vast multitude of options that has given this application a massive pop-culture status and continues to grow in terms of content and user subscription.

As our society has and is becoming increasingly immersed in media culture, it is the products of this media culture i.e. celebs, films that are taking advantage of this particular social networking sites popularity to promote themselves and as a result gain mass followings which ultimately leads to the explosion of their popularity and also to our familiarity with the products which they are promoting. Various fan pages and pages linked with familar products in the media also allows users of Facebook chances to enter a variety of competitions, some carying with them massive prizes and also keys users in on information linked to events that are happening around the globe.

On the flipside, like many things out there, Facebook has had its up and downs namely to do with the sites claim to ownership over users personal information and photos which was later retracted after a massive outcry from its users. Like other social networking sites out there Facebook is never going to be safe from hackers but it is our responsibility as users of this site to prevent this from happening by insuring that our personal information, log in names and passwords, are not shared with anyone we done not trust and also that we insure that our profiles privacy settings are set to the right levels.

By Kyle Redpath
18/09/2010

Viva la Resistance?

The main issue I take with the likes of Kingsley’s article on the "Psycho-Civilized Society" and Foucault’s adoption of the panopticon metaphor is the lack of weight given to the possibility for resistance. Sure, technologies of surveillance have become increasingly sophisticated in the 21^st century, but so too have our methods for subverting them. A data entry worker who has their productivity monitored according to the number of keystrokes they enter per hour may periodically hold down one key for a few minutes in order to achieve an artificially high reading, while shoplifters have circumvented security tag detectors through the use of booster bags, for example.

On a related note, I was surprised during this week's lecture by some people’s apparent acceptance of employers using their employees’ Facebook pages as evidence to justify disciplinary action in certain situations. Where do we draw the line? Surely it’s a slippery slope that we don’t want to start down, for what initially begins as the use of Facebook for investigating legitimate cases of underperformance may progress into its use for finding an excuse to unfairly dismiss an employee disliked by management.

Another class member’s suggestion that it’s only fair that employees can conversely surveil their employer’s pages also sparked my interest, for it seems that this is already taking place. For example, the blog post What Does Your Facebook Profile Say About You? refers to the potentially damaging act of a senior executive posting snaps of a lavish holiday during a period of cost cutting and job losses. The key difference here, of course, is power. I’m pretty sure that hitting my boss up about his hypocritical vacationing (we’re all affected by the recession?) is a sure-fire way to bump me up the redundancy list.

So what does count as effective resistance? The widespread availability and affordability of prosumer camcorders, video capable mobile phones and other communication technologies has given rise to forms of ‘counter-surveillance’, whereby the traditional surveillers become the surveilled. For example, volunteer-based Cop Watch groups in Canada and the United States film instances of police misconduct and abuse for the purpose of ‘policing the police’ (an example of what Steve Mann terms “sousveillance”). The case of Rodney King is an infamous example of how such methods can level the surveillance hierarchy and hold authoritative organisations at least partially accountable for their actions.

However, Gary Marx reminds us that we shouldn’t be too quick to extol the virtues of the “democratisation of surveillance”, which has ultimately fed greater suspicion, anxiety and defensiveness within society. Not to mention ill-appointed resource consumption. An occurrence of ‘counter-counter-surveillance’ springs to mind, where police in Eugene, Oregon spied on a Cop Watch press conference using videotaping technology. Note the descriptor, press conference. I think most of us can think of better uses of police time and resources! Yet, with the popularity of social networking sites such as Facebook (and applications which claim to reveal who has been viewing your profile), the ludicrous cycle of monitoring each other monitoring each other seems set to continue in multiple facets of our lives.

God or Google: Media Technology Modern Day Replacement for Religion?

Where do the majority of people seem to turn to when they have fears, questions, or in need of an answer? When looking for health cures, diet miracles, counselling or asking any sort of questions of mental, physical, or emotional nature, where is it most people turn?

Do people ask god for their perfect partner? Or do they ask Google?

In an interview with Heidi Campbell of Texas A&M University, Heidi told Fox News reporter “Implicit religion demonstrates technology use can take on a religious role or quality in postmodern culture when it substitutes for belief and behaviors once attached to religion and religious practice".[1] A controversial statement? Very.

Is technology being substituted for belief?

In the article How the iPhone Became Devine: New Media, Relgision, and the Intertexuality of Meaning, Campbell analyzes the way religious terms are often used in with modern technology to make the consumers view the product in a certain light, such as referring to the iPhone as the ‘jesus phone’.

But they also propose that technology has actually become the modern day substitute of religion.

When one thinks about it, God, or a religious deity, is normally omniscient, everywhere and all knowing. Sounds pretty close to the internet doesn't it? And now, with cell phones that now have internet access, people are able to constantly be connected with this ‘higher power’ no matter where they go.

'It' is with you always.

Ask a person what they can not live without many will probably say their cell phone, laptop, computer etc. New media has become the modern day sacred object. Social networks have replaced churches for communial sites of gathering and now are performing the religious function of social cohesion. There are even sacred ‘texts’ and manual on how to use these sacred objects, and with advertisement millions more people around the world are ‘converted’ into this western techno religion each day.

So ask yourself this question...who do you turn to first for help; God? Or Google.

---

[1] http://techcrunch.com/2010/07/29/apple-religion

Social Networking, The movie.

A movie about the creation of facebook is being released in October, (early next year for New Zealand.) directed by David Fincher. Apparently none of the facebook staff or creators are in the film.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lB95KLmpLR4

You know who never forgets?

The internet never forgets and this is undoubtedly a cause for concern. Everything that we put online and everything that others put on the internet about us is there forever-- some of which could be embarrassing and harmful towards our online and offline identities in the future, long after the event or context has been forgotten, and of course in the present. We've all heard stories of people getting fired for stupid comments made on facebook, and no body is safe (or exempt from stupidity, it seems).

However, although the internet can so easily turn against us, we mustn't forget the internet's power to aid us. In the dinosaur comic above, T-Rex makes an interesting point.

Imagine the police being a prospective employer who looks you up online. Instead of finding photos of you being drunk and doing stupid things, an employer could come across a photo of you with your grandma, and a puppy, or something similarly as pleasant. You just have to be smart about what you put online, and you'll be fine.

You could even use 'old' social networking sites to manipulate the image of what you used to be like (if you remember your passwords). Your bebo page for example, could be changed around to what you think is 'cool' now, but still might be considered by peers as a representation of your past.

Of course, there are things that other people post, but there are ways around this too. As for photos, status updates or anything else you're tagged in-- just untag yourself, Facebook will even ensure that nobody ever tags you again in a photo you've untagged yourself from. Also, don't be like this man and give other people a ridiculous video of yourself.

It might not get rid of your internet footprint, but it'll help lesson the chance of leaving negative things behind by simply thinking before posting. As for those sites that you don't want other people knowing you visit, Incognito?

Facebook Revenge

I’ve always thought of myself as a techno-realist, a wee bit computer illiterate, surviving on the bare minimum of internet access and cell phone usage. I’ve felt that I use new media, Facebook and the like, simply for social acceptance and to kill my boredom. However I found myself shocked recently to discover exactly how deeply new media had planted itself into my life and relationships…

After a minor disagreement with a friend one Saturday night I found myself awake in the middle of the night with ideas popping into my head about how to get back at her and let her know I was angry. Yet, for some reason all the options that popped into my head were ‘Facebook attacks’. I considered updating my status to something that would get at her or deleting all of my photos with her in them but I finally decided on deleting her as a contact all together. I followed through with this early the next morning.

After questioning a number of people on this matter it seems that this is a rather common thing to do - getting even with someone through Facebook. I wonder how many people, like my self, don’t realize when they’re doing it.
Facebook has become so commonplace in many of our lives that we don’t even realize when it’s influencing our actions.
The major downside I can see in these situations is the immediacy in which Facebook allows us to express ourselves. It is such a readily available source that it allows and in some ways encourages us to act on our thoughts and feelings immediately, as we feel them, without thinking of repercussions or consequences.
This brings me onto my next point…
Another negative of impulsively expressing yourself on Facebook is the inability to take anything back. For example, I’ve deleted this girl but regretted the extremeness of my actions almost immediately after. Now the only way to fix the situation would be to would be to re-request the girl’s friendship which in-turn would alert the girl to the fact that I had deleted her in the first place, if she had not already noticed, in which case she would probably reject my request anyway.

Think back to years earlier when if you were at an intermediate school disco, if some drama went down that night, we all had to wait until school the next day to do anything about it by which time you had probably cooled down anyway to the point where all you wanted to do was discuss it briefly with your friends and then forget about it.
I’m sure I’m not alone in this and that there are a large number of people who have posted or done things that they regret on a social networking site.
Maybe all we need to do is think before we type or maybe this is only going to get worse…

By Sally Weir

Privacy.....

How much privacy can the everyday person expect in a world where people use social sites like twitter to tell us what they've had for lunch, how much work they have left to do before the end of the day, if their boss is being mean and nasty or even if their bowel movement was normal. Does anyone really care THAT much about what you're doing that they need an almost hourly update on what mundane things you're doing around the office or at home? But what if the privacy you expected was a little more serious than having you twitter or facebook account locked down so only your closest cyber buddies could see what you're up too..... What if it was the information surrounding a terrible tragedy in your life, what then?

Cameron Slater, a New Zealand online blogger was recently convicted on 9 out of the 10 charges of breaching name suppression orders: each of these convictions came with a $750 fine as well as court costs. Most of the people he chose to 'name and shame' were high profile defendants some of whom had been convicted of sexual assault. But one of the people whose name suppression he chose to breach was the victim of a sexual assault, and he did so knowingly and without remorse. In a statement outside the Auckland courts on the 14th of September Slater said he had "no regrets, and was not remorseful". Well im sure the sexual assault victim he happily outed will be pleased as punch to hear that.

In the court transcript the mentioning of the charge (charge number 2, on page 59 if you want to find it in the transcripts) is as follows "The article also identified the victim of the offending in the following way. "He faces a raft of charges including four charges of raping his wife, unlawful sexual connection with his wife and abduction for sex" the blog this was posted in also had an easily decodable pictogram of the accused. This gave the people reading enough information to figure out who the victim of the crime was.

In class everyone seemed to have a differing idea on what privacy is, and indeed most people do. What is private to some isn't to others, so I can't tell you that yes Slater was right or no he was in the wrong, I can only give you my opinion. In the end it is really up to you to decide if Cameron Slater was rightly or wrongly convicted, or even if a $750 fine is enough of a punishment. I just know that if he had outed someone I love and care about in this way..... I'd want more than a $750 fine to be his punishment.

Court finds blogging just the same as old media

Cameron Slater has been found guilty of eight breaches of suppression orders and one of identifying a victim on his blog Whale Oil. Slater has portrayed himself as a defender of free speech but the judge wasn't buying it, despite his claim that he posted the information in such a way that it was not immediately readable and therefore wasn't in English, Māori or sign-language (NZ official languages). Breaking the law is breaking the law, even on the net, in this country.

Gaming Girls

Girl or Boy gamer???

Through the medium of online gaming, gender can be easily disguised opposed to LAN events.I propose that females can play games amongst other male players and go undetected. Being a female does not necessarily mean you are bad at gaming. I would even go as far as suggesting some female players are better than male players. Through the anonymity of the internet and gaming websites, females have the capability to play games without being discriminated against by male players.

Through online gaming you don’t have to disclose personal information to other gamers therefore they do not need to know your gender and if you play well enough they will most probably assume you are a male. You are unable to see who you are playing against unless you have a web cam or a microphone therefore you can disguise yourself within cyberspace. With the option of female and male characters you can chose who you wish to play as. Playing as a female character does not mean that you are a female gamer. I am certain many males play as female characters because some are hypersexualized and sexy. This can also explain why these characters are chosen as personal characters/avatars. Elena Bertozzi discusses how using a female character can often lead to sexual innuendo to particular physical aspects of the female body. This although does not mean a female cannot play an online game it just means choosing a female character comes with its challenges.

I suggest the problem with cross gender gaming is not in online gaming sites, it is through LAN's. Here you can see who you are up against thus creating the challenge. No male wants to be defeated by a female player as they will be mocked by their friends. They will also lose a part of their masculinity as they have been conquered by a girl. Although if the female wins she also gets discriminated and is seen as less feminine and is no longer 'sexy'. Bertozzi discusses how females choose to be sexually attractive to males therefore they do not like to challenge them to games in case they win. I propose this is only valid when you can see who you are playing against. When you play online it doesn't matter how many guys a girl defeats as it is not like you are ever going to meet them.

Facebook, PANIC! Really?

As with most new technologies, there seems to be a moral panic around the implications the social network site Facebook has and is having on our social behaviour. Boyd’s reading is very convincing and the points he makes are true as I can see from my experience as a facebook user. For Example, the news feeds on facebook do allow more exposure to one’s personal details more easily and this does concern me as alot of the groups that I see some people join on facebook I do pass judgement on. Also some of the status updates that people declare on facebook are shocking as some are so personal and if I am not that close with them it does alter the way I view them. This does seem serious, especially if people have employers or parents as friends as I think some things should be private, and the way we interact with some people should be different from others. Evidently, I do believe Boyd does have a good point that it’s scary how all social contexts all emerge into one on facebook. However, when applying his argument to my own engagement with facebook I cannot relate. To me Facebook is a public place so I do not write personal status updates and if I do I do think carefully about what I post. In contrast if I was at home talking with my family or with my close friends I really would say anything personal and talk freely. Mark Zuckerberg is being portrayed as such a powerful evil person, but in reality we are in control of how we define what is private not him. We do have the right to privacy I believe because to me privacy is almost like freedom, in the public sphere we are controlled to act in certain ways by different institutions and certain norms which are in place. Within the private sphere there is less control and we are given more freedom and I think this is important. Zuckerberg does say that Facebook is following the trends within society to become more public giving examples such as twitter and reality television, however I’m exposed to all these and still appreciate my privacy. Overall, privacy is a personal choice and I do concur with Boyd by saying it is up to us whether privacy is something we want. Not Zuckerberg.

Lose yourself with Facebook?

If I were asked to define a Facebook profile, I’d probably ramble on about it being a space for articulating one’s identity, albeit often at a superficial level, to either a network of “friends” or the world at large in the case of a public profile. I certainly wouldn’t have described it as an arena in which I become disconnected from myself, posing a threat to my mental health! Yet, this is precisely what US psychologist Leonard Sax argues in his latest book, Girls On The Edge, which identifies social networking sites and other electronic communication technologies as one of four factors fuelling crises of identity among teenage girls.


Obsessively updating their Facebook profiles, statuses and photos late into the night, he contends that large numbers of girls inhabit a “cyberbubble” where they are constantly connected to one another at the ultimate cost of failing to internally develop a stable sense of self. The thirst for external validation becomes all the more central, as social networking sites facilitate immediate feedback to the persona that is being portrayed and unrelentingly honed in a way that is typically not true to who the girl really is, something she herself has lost sight of.

Of course, such an argument assumes that we have an innate sense of identity in the first place from which we can become disconnected. In opposition to this, sociologists such as Erving Goffman and Judith Butler have compellingly argued that identity is always something which we perform; that it is socially constructed rather than an essence we are born with. Certainly, in my opinion, social networking sites have merely provided a new stage for the performance of identity which has always taken place, rather than constituting a holistically new mode of self expression with a new range of associated pitfalls. For example, in order to promote the 'right' image of ourselves as up-to-date or on trend, we may pursue fashion fads that are not necessarily a reflection of our "genuine" or "authentic" selves, if such selves even exist. Does such behaviour not predate that to which Sax is referring?

Also worthy of note is his assertion that the “cyberbubble” is only a problem for girls, as boys are exceedingly more likely to be passionate about first person shooter games than Facebook. To what do we owe this difference? In an interview regarding his earlier book Why Gender Matters, Sax contends that boys and girls are “hardwired” very differently to each other. He refers to a study where female new-born babies look at a woman while male babies have their attention drawn to a hanging mobile when both are placed at either side of their crib, concluding that girls are interested in human faces while boys seek movement or action. In this sense, boys spend their childhood exploring while girls enjoy tea parties (and are later drawn to video games and Facebook respectively), not because of social conditioning, but because of differences present from the first day of life. Sorry Bertozzi, but your policy recommendations for getting females into gaming are apparently in vain. See the anti-essentialists cringe!

His support for biological determinism aside, Sax does make some valid points regarding how parents should limit the time their daughters spend occupying the “cyberbubble” (no mobile phones at the dinner table, for example). Unfortunately, it is all too tempting to make bold, sweeping claims about new technologies that ignore pre-existing trends in social behaviour. But of course, scaremongering always has been an effective way to sell a book.

Do we need anonymity on the net?

There was a time (in years past) where allowing yourself to be openly identified on the Internet was seen as quite taboo. There were measures and protocols that allowed one to feel as though pseudonyms were the accepted norm and concealing your identity meant that you were completely safe from the vast reaches of the web and all its dangers. Now (over time), it is as if the Internet has become necessary tool that we constantly tap into. Naturally with our ever increasing trust of the Internet, we have let the ‘hang ups’ of identity slip through our grasp. As a society we seem more open about putting ourselves out there for the world to see. Then why, after all this time of ‘stranger danger’ being drilled into us about the web, are we suddenly letting go of our identity neuroses?
It seems with the development of the web and its easy accessibility, communication via these media platforms has been allowed to grow and evolve. Particular platforms like social networking sites such as Facebook, Bebo and MySpace have enabled us to feel less inhibited about putting our true/natural identities out there. Yet even this may be a generalization. Those that seem to be putting themselves into the vast world of the internet may only seem to be doing so. People still have reservations about complete exposure. So then, we need to ask if this is a generational trend.
Speaking from personal experience, I use a pseudonym for my Facebook page. There are pictures of me but my profile is excessively private (to my knowledge- Facebook is forever creating new revealing apps and constantly default subscribing its members). I have given no employer details, personal contact details; even my current city is a mystery. The reason I have done this is only partly due to identity protection. In general, I do not think it is necessary to divulge such information on an internet- based forum. On the flip side, my much younger cousin uploads photos frivolously, has detailed contact information and posts inappropriate status updates and comments. It seems this is the natural behaviour for her and her friends in this environment.
So perhaps, it is the younger generation that has less identity hang-ups and less reason to be cautious about identity than when I started using the internet. The dangers are still present, but perhaps, when I first snooped around the Web, details and information about the dangers of the web were constantly blaring through the media. This may have been because the Internet was somewhat still an unknown tool to society. Now it is our technological everything and because increasingly younger generations are growing up knowing more about the Net, the Web may not seem like such a threat; which then explains all the willing exposure of personal information pertaining to identity. It seems that in future, anonymity will be a dead scene.