Is big brother watching you ... through your web cam?

Someone watches me as I use the Atm. They watch me while I’m walking down the street, when I stop to get gas, whilst shop, when I’m dining at a restaurant and while I’m at work. They screen my emails, phone calls and text messages and track the web sites I visit. Who are these people? They are my employers, business owners, secret intelligence agencies and our Government who are always keeping an eye on us and watching.

The example may seem a little dramatised, however I’m sure we can all agree that this scenario isn’t exactly out of the ordinary and in actuality is normal for our times. Surveillance is something that we have all become accustomed to and believe this intrusion of privacy to be a necessary evil for our protection and safety. But you wouldn’t expect this kind of surveillance (or spying to be more precise) from your teachers’ right?

Seems far fetched and hard to believe but in the lower Marion school district of Philadelphia this was exactly the case! Mac notebooks were loaned to high school students that enabled teachers to spy on students in their homes through the webcam device which could be turned on by staff of the school. Maybe I’m being dramatic but this has really made me paranoid! The first thought that popped into my mind was “Big Brother is watching you.” My second thought got me thinking that maybe our society isn’t that different from ones shown in films like Eagle eye and Resident Evil where corporations and smart technologies go rogue to spy on their citizens! To be completely honest if this was headlined in the news tomorrow I’m not sure I would be completely surprised. So in the mean time folks cover up those webcam’s because you never know who could be watching on the other side.

Privacy, Profile Ads, and Agency

Source

 Are money-making advertisers who import personalized ads into our "private" spaces online manipulative culprits? Do we have the right to completely "own" our profiles, or is Facebook ultimately the property of its owners? Do users have the agency to ignore or click adverts? This post tries to answer these questions by: asserting the rights Facebook's advertising has to "invade" our profiles, and examining the active means the average user uses to respond to advertising.

Personalized ads
So you open your homepage, click to browse profiles or play a game, and to the right hand side, you notice a line of different sorts of adverts. Of course, you get this all the time, so it's only natural to ignore it instantly, but you don't. Why? Because at least two of those ads appeal to some of your personal interests. For a moment, you start to wonder how in the world Facebook could direct ads that the personal information you'd put on your profile. You remember reading somewhere that Facebook measures the quality of our interactions and relationship to determine what we see in our news feed, so you settle for this scientific justification. But the thing is, you can't stand adverts anymore especially when they invade the space you thought was private. You can't stand it, but you can't get rid of it.

I certainly feel like this and I'm sure I'm not the only one. I don't want anyone to measure up anything about me, deliver it to advertisers (who make money out of my free service), and then dish me with ads I didn't ask for in the first place. The questions to consider are: do they need permission from me? Should they pay me money if I respond to that advert? My answer shockingly is...no. I say this because just as the information we disclose to the public sphere is no longer in our control and ownership, so is what we put online in a public space like Facebook. We may own our profiles, but we don't own the site in which our profile is situated. Though privacy settings may apply to its users, it does not apply to the corporates behind it. Is it unethical for employers, educational institutions or commercial entities to access and use information we make publically available online, or is it our own responsibility to limit and control personal information? On Facebook, no matter how private we choose to set our information, the control we have is minimal because of the context the information is situated. Same thing applies to e-mails and any other site where we get random adverts in our 'private' spaces. So, I don't think we should complain about this. BUT, what about when they're making money off this, what do we get in return? How do we respond to adverts though?


Agency
As Marxists would claim, consumers and producers of cultural products have little to no agency to think and reflect on what they're doing - that is, assisting the capitalist system. These bodies of thinkers reckon the cultural industries manipulate us into using our bodies for free labour, and we get paid less than the amount of work we do. They see us as passive consumers who think we need something, when really, we only fulfil temporary desires only to keep the manipulative system of production going. Cultural theorists claim otherwise. According to them, we are active in our production and consumption. I lean towards this cultural perspective in terms of advertisements and the amount of 'control' or agency we have on them. Marx would say because these ads are specifically personalized and imported into our online private spaces, the capitalist (advertiser) gains his money, and due to our false consciousness, we go ahead and succumb to the ad. This is a bit far-fetched. Certainly, we do not always respond to ads on television, so why would we respond to online ads? We are neither passive nor are we oblivious to the profit advertisers make from this process.

So in short, privacy is limited whether we like it or not. Corporates are ultimately in control of our online spaces and the private information we put there. With adverts, it’s a choice to click. I ignore it if I have no interest in it. Facebook is its owners' property so I believe they can do what they want to do with my information, as long as it does not harm me or any other user in any way. Thus, it is no longer a matter of privacy, it is a matter of harm.

1) Advertisers make money off our information, should we get anything in return? 2) Does using Facebook count as Leisure?

Facebook, Privacy and Control.

Danah Boyd's article "Facebooks Privacy Trainwreck" alerts readers to many things we may not of noticed before...
Before everything is stated lets breakdown what Privacy actually means... Privacy can mean a lot of things to many different people it can mean personal space, secutirty, having control over the information shared with others or as Boyd describes it privacy or the concept of "private" is simply a single bit that is either 0 or 1 meaning the data is either exposed or not....
now lets examine the role of privacy in social networks...when we are on Facebook we dont stop and think who will read our posts, view our pictures, post on our wall...Why?? well we have the right to make our page as private as we can right?? meaning only our friends can view our pictures or our posts however we dont stop to think about other people who may also have indirect access to our pages...for instance your friend accidently leaves her Facebook open in a private setting and your page happens to be open..everyone as a result can view the page (without permission) but can do so anyways..so no matter how "private" we make our information on social networks such as Facebook we are left with little control on how much privacy we actually have...
A discussion was bought up in Tutorial about an instance in which a person posted pictures up on Facebook of himself on a trip the same day he called in sick at work?? so if the manager happens to stumble across those pictures do they have a right to give that person a warning?..fire them?... in my personal opinion individuals have to be really careful about what they choose to post on public social websites...at the end of the day what we share was our choice..no one forces us to share things we would rather not share to the public therefore we all make rational decisions which sometimes have repercussions.
so in social networks such as Facebook what is the barrier we cross in order to decide whether we are willing to give-up some of our most private moments to other individuals?
one can simply reply with friends and family...however how many people can actually go on their Facebook and declare that every person on their friends list is worthy of knowing all the details they wish to share...to be honest this may be a mere handful of people.
So at the end of the day we as individuals have to take a step back and examine how much Privacy we actually control...yes it is true that you can always deactivate your Facebook, delete all your information and pictures but your account still lives on in the vast world of cyberspace waiting patiently to be reactivated with the push of a button.
Therefore whether we like it or not our information lives on long after we are gone.

How to lose and not get a job: Facebook

There has been recent news in Germany of calls to ban employees from using social networking sites to discriminate new employees.

Although the attempt to legislate against employees using Facebook appears a little extreme, it represents an increasing and concerning trend.

What is happening in Germany, is an attempt to make this gray area strictly black and white.

By default, Facebook makes aspects of your profile open to users, allowing people to see your pictures and information. If you have nothing to hide, this won't affect your professional life. But there is always the threat that a friend will write an incriminating wallpost, or tag yourself in an unflattering photo or video.

Of course, the obvious thing to do would be to make your profile private.This might help the individual in the hiring process, but what about after you have been hired? But what if your colleague or employer adds you as a friend? A refusal to accept a request could cause an uncomfortable workplace, and cause as large a professional threat as that embarrassing photo.

I have had an employee tell me that he checks all candidates online, although I'm unaware of how thorough these checks were. For the employee, these checks were necessary for the credibility of the company. Furthermore, the job involved working closely with young children, and any trouble or ineptitude caused by employees would reflect poorly upon the company.

Fortunately, at the time I didn't have an online social networking profile. If this were to happen now, I think I would view it as an invasion of privacy, especially as an online profile wouldn't reflect my abilities. I'm troubled by the thought of strangers looking through your photos, already anticipating finding something negative. At the same time, I understand the position of employers, especially with children involved.

Although I'm still undecided on the issue, on this gray area, I'm leaning towards the side of privacy. Although it may seem a little naive and hopeful, I hope that similar action to Germany won't be required in other countries, but that employees will refrain from using Facebook to monitor employees, and if they do, that information they receive will be put in perspective. In the meantime, maybe don't tell the world you hate your boss.

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.

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

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.

Online Privacy

It seems like privacy is becoming more of a issue with the internet becoming more mainstream. Everyone and anyone can look at someone's profile and know what school they went to, what job they do, who their friends are, what they look like, where they live and even their cellphone number - if they're silly enough to list it.
People need to be more aware of the World Wide Web. That's exactly what it is, world wide.

With profile sites such as MySpace, Facebook and Bebo, they allow users to personalise their profiles with pictures and personal information. They also allow people to add and decline friends as they please and by doing this, it means that more friends they add, the more people out there in the wide web can see their information and pictures due to links.
However, it seems as though Bebo and now MySpace are a dying breed, at least in my opinion, people are now moving onto Facebook. I think it may be because of the simple design and it's a lot more private. By this I mean that they allow an option where you can select people to see your "Limited Profile". This is an option that allow users to customise and put things that they want their "weak ties" to see, for example. I think it's a good idea, especially if you're a serial friend adder, i.e. someone who values the amount of friends they have. It allows people to add whoever they want but also keep personal details private and open only to those they know in person.

I do think that people still need to be more weary of their privacy...profile sites such as Facebook can only protect your personal information to a certain point. I think it really is down to the user to make good decisions on who they are adding. Many profiles are fake and only want to be added so they can gain information for marketing purposes or even hacking purposes.

Maybe think twice before you add the next "friend" to your profile, even though they might be the one who will finally achieve your goal of hitting one million friends!