Online Privacy... You Decide!

Reprint Title: Do Social Network Sites Have a Responsibility to Protect Our Private Information

Are social networks required to protect your privacy? Do they have a special relationship to their users to assure them that they will not reveal any of their online activity without express, direct permission from the user?  Barnes (2006) wrote, “In America, we live in a paradoxical world of privacy. On one hand, teenagers reveal their intimate thoughts and behaviors online and, on the other hand, government agencies and marketers are collecting personal data about us.  Teenagers will freely give up personal information to join social network on the Internet. After wards, they are surprised when their parents read their journals.  Communities are outraged by the personal information posted by young people online and colleges keep track of students activities on and off campus.”

With Social Networking Sites (SNS) hosting up to 100 million users, not to mention Facebook that currently has 600 million register accounts; is it even possible for a social network site to protect your private information.  It seems that Facebook acknowledges that it is not possible to provide you a 100% guarantee that they have the ability to protect your private information.  Facebook (2010), privacy policy includes:

Risks inherent in sharing information. Although we allow you to set privacy options that limit access to your information, please be aware that no security measures are perfect or impenetrable. We cannot control the actions of other users with whom you share your information. We cannot guarantee that only authorized persons will view your information. We cannot ensure that information you share on Facebook will not become publicly available. We are not responsible for third party circumvention of any privacy settings or security measures on Facebook. You can reduce these risks by using common sense security practices such as choosing a strong password, using different passwords for different services, and using up to date antivirus software.

Facebook’s privacy policy implies that it is your responsibility to exercise due diligence when engaging in online activities.  Therefore, who should have access to our private information, and under what circumstance?  Is private really private? If I establish an account on a social network and I set my privacy setting, does that mean that no one can access my information?  What is private information?  Is something that is private to me private to you?  In other words, if I do not care that someone has my name, email address, birth date, residing city, employment, educational profile and or access to my friends, why should you, why should anyone?  Do social network sites have an obligation to protect my information or have I proved the site too much personal information online.

Is this the same type of information that would come up in an engaging conversation, with a group of friends, maybe?  So, what is the difference?  It might have more to with what it means to be a member of a social network. For example, my LinkedIn account states that I have 13 connections that links me to 371,632 other professionals.  Now this is great networking, but in reality, I have no idea who is the other 371, 619 connections.  Should I be concern? Can I pick and choose whom I what to engage?  Do sites like Facebook have a fiduciary relationship with me to keep my information away from anyone that I do not want to see it?

Facebook is very clear in their policy that they, as well as other SNS will use your information in some form or another and it will be made available to marketers.  Marketers will in turn make your information available in different forums throughout Cyberspace. It should be noted, that this marketing policy is typical for any SNS, online retailer, credit card company, and or registration for access to online services, and is not restricted to Facebook.

Information from other websites. We may institute programs with advertising partners and other websites in which they share information with us: We may ask advertisers to tell us how our users responded to the ads we showed them (and for comparison purposes, how other users who didn’t see the ads acted on their site). This data sharing, commonly known as “conversion tracking,” helps us measure our advertising effectiveness and improve the quality of the advertisements you see. We may receive information about whether or not you’ve seen or interacted with certain ads on other sites in order to measure the effectiveness of those ads (Facebook, 2010).

Herein lies the problem. If I post something about chocolate does that mean I will receive communication from a manufacture of chocolate.  If I post something about basketball, will I receive advertisements dedicated to sporting events?  Well, the answer to that question is yes.  I will be exposed to some form of marketing on my home page, in my email, snail mail, the side boarders of my search results, and or any other methods or forums that I provide online personal information.  Are there laws to protect me?  Well let us review the Fourth Amendment and how it relates to privacy.  The Fourth Amendment states:

The right of the people to be secure in their person, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, an the persons or thing to be seized. 

 How does this forth amendment right protect me from online predators or from people that want to access my personal information. In one Supreme Court Decision, “Smith v. Maryland, the court held that the defendant has no subjective expectation of privacy in a search conducted by a pen register.  A pen register is a device installed by the telephone company, which can track the phone numbers of all calls outgoing from a person house.”  One can reasonable feel that the phone company has your phone number and the phone number that you dialed even though it is a private number.

This decision was upheld in the case “United States v. Miller (425 U.S. 435 (1976) in which Justice Blackmun wrote, “[t]his Court consistently has held that a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties” (Hodge, 2006). 

This is the case that is adapted for cyberspace.  It is based on “voluntarily turning over” information.  We have a choice regarding what information we provide to SNS.  Before the registration is completed, an acceptable use agreement pops up.  This agreement includes the privacy policy.  We can choose to agree or disagree.  There is evidence that people do not read privacy policies or if they do read them do not fully understand their contents (Berendt, 2005). If you do not read the disclaimer, does this imply that you are forgoing your rights in order to participate in the network? It would appear at that moment that participation is more important than privacy.

In U.S. v. Charbonneau, the district court stated “an e-mail message, like a letter, cannot be afforded a reasonable expectation of privacy once that message is received.”  When an email is sent and once that email arrives to its destination, it is now the discretion of the recipient to guard the content.  If I post on a SNS, I have in result, opened the letter for all to see that has access to any one of my connections or friends.  Hodge’s (2006) wrote in his review of a case study: 

By signing on to Facebook or MySpace and providing personal information for others to see, a user is, in effect, not seeking to preserve the information as private, but is instead making a choice to publicize this information for others.  There is no substantial need to have a profile on Facebook or MySpace in order to engage in other, everyday activities and there are no institutions, which require registration and the posting of a profile on one of these web sites.  In fact, there are other cyberspace mediums for the sharing of personal information with others, which hold them selves out to be more private, and can be used without any additional cost to the user.

This brings us back to the issue of voluntary participation. The personal information that you post is completely your decision.  Thus far, there seems to be no fiduciary relationship between SNS and the users.  The user is not required to provide any information that they deem too personal in nature or too private.  What is posted can be considered to be something that is in plan view for all users of the network to see.  There is no crime to look inside someone’s non-gated backyard. If users are in a legal dispute and the issue of what can be used against them arises in a court of law, for example; in a divorce proceeding, employment applications, and or criminal prosecution; if it is posted on a SNS it could be considered as in “plan view” based on prior legal precedent. As stated in the application of the Fourth Amendment, what is in plan view can be subjected to seizure and is admissible. If you were to establish a relationship with someone online, they in turn have the ability to use your communication for any purpose.

Therefore, the question of trust arises.  Do we trust SNS to protect our private information when no fiduciary relationships exist, and if we do how does that affect the relationship?  Trust is critical in understanding when we choose to share personal information with others and when we chose secrecy (Joinson, A.N., Reips, U.D., Buchanan, T., Schofield C. B.2010).  If someone trusted the look of the site, then they trusted the site with private information.  This not only applies to SNS but to online retailers as well.  There was little evidence that people’s dispositional privacy attitudes influenced their interpretation of the specific situation, suggesting that being concerned about privacy does not influence how a specific privacy-related situation is viewed (Joinson, A.N., Reips, U.D., Buchanan, T., Schofield C. B., 2010) .  Therefore, the mere trust in the design or function of the site will surpass our concerns about privacy.

In conclusion, it is apparent that SNS or any site where there is no fiduciary relationship to protect your private information; they are only required to exercise a reasonable attempt to protect said information.  However, this issue requires further study as more information is posted online as a means of cost cutting and state and federal mandates.  It should be noted that the issue of criminal intent or negligence  in the handling of private information was not addressed in this blog.  In fact a very different outcome with the application of the Fourth Amendment could result if negligence or criminal intent was a factor in the handling of one’s private information.  Nevertheless, if at the present time  the information is indeed private or very personal in nature, one may need to consider if they want to post it with the knowledge that all your friend’s friends have access to the information and also knowing the fact that this information can live forever Cyberspace. 

 Bibliography

Barnes, S. (2006, September 4). A Privacy Paradox: Social networking in the United States. Retrieved April 4, 2011, from First Monday: http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1394/1312

Berendt, B. O. (2005). Privacy in e-commerce: Stated perferences vs. actual behavior. Communications of the ACM (48), 101-106.

Facebook. (2010, December 22). Privacy Policy. Retrieved April 4, 2011, from Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/policy.php

Hodge, M. J. (2006). The Fourth Amendment and Privacy Issues on the "New" Internet: Facebook.com and MySpace.com. Southern Illinois University Law Journal, (31), 95-122.

Joinson, A. R. (2010). Privacy, Trust, and Self-Disclosure Online. Human-Computer Interactions , 25, 1-24.

Related articles

• A New Social Networking Site Offers an Improved Level of Privacy while Providing an Opportunity for its Users to Generate Income (prweb.com)

Can ethics succeed when policy and culture collide?

Monday, March 28, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court wrestled with a case that can have a far-reaching impact on the issue of gender discrepancies in the work place.  Six female employees filed a lawsuit based on the1964 Civil Rights Act.  They stated that Wal-Mart supports a culture of gender discrimination.  Now mind you, the case is not about the actual discrimination but can these women mover forward and file a class action lawsuit based on being over looked for promotions, pay increases and management opportunities.  Thus far, all lower courts have supported the rights of these women  to file this class action lawsuit that would represented about 500,000 women at a cost of about $1,100 for each claimant if they were to prevail.

I know that this is possible having been in the same situation as some of these women.  Thinking that if I just worked harder and longer hours that I would receive the promotion.  In one of my own experiences, after training about a dozen assistance mangers to become retail store mangers, I knew that my knowledge and experience was of values to the company.  All those managers I trained immediately moved on to manage their own retail store. However for me, the actual promotion never happened.  Did I say that all the manager I trained were not of color.  So I can sympathize with these women.

I think if you were to ask any female working in any of the Fortune 500 companies or any company, I would bet that they would have many stories to tell you about the glass ceiling.   Something that we all know exist but up until this point was not voiced in a court of law with such thunder. 

The Los Angeles Times article written by James Oliphant and David G. Savage on March 30, 2011, reports that the hourly wage earners at Wal-Mart for females to males the ratio is 2:1. Times magazine AP writer Mark Sherman wrote on March. 28, 2011 “that 65% of the hourly workers are women.”  This means that the females are responsible for a majority of the sales floor activities, cashiering and dusting, responsibilities.  Yes I did said dusting. 

“The men make up 86% of management and are responsible for the decision-making, hiring, firing and promotional responsibilities. Not to mention, that the men are paid more money, not just in the position of management but also in all positions.  Women within the company are paid less then men even if they have more seniority and better reviews.  They receive fewer promotions and wait longer before getting promoted.” This is the issue of the claimants.

The claimants state that Wal-Mart promotes a strong corporate culture of gender bias.  This is where it gets tough and even the Supreme Court Justices question this aspect of the case.  Or should I say this is where the “male” Supreme Court Justices could not rationalize the discriminatory aspect of the case as it pertains to "legal liability."  It was reported that the court is sharply divided along gender lines. Can you image that the U.S. Supreme court is divided by gender.  What is this world coming to; I thought justice was blind?

The male Justices’ with the exception of Justice Boutrous, questioned how Wal-Mart could be held accountable for the action of the managers at store level.  It seems that since there is not actual “policy” for gender discrimination that Wal-Mart could not be held liable for the action and decisions of store level management.  In other words, “the policy states” that Wal-Mart calls for equal treatment with regards to race or sex.  As far as the male justices are concerned, this policy statement can relieve Wal-Mart of its legal responsibility.

However, on the other side of this gender divide are the female justices.  They feel that allowing local management to determine promotions could result in discrimination against women.  Ginsburg a former sex-discrimination lawyer supports the assertion that “gender bias could “creep” into the workplace.  It isn’t all that complication.”

The female claimants state that Wal-Mart supports a “culture of gender bias.”  They made reference to being treated as less then professionals and do not receive equal pay for equal work and the statistics indicate that this is in fact true. 

So how does one know that they are being discriminated against in the work place?  I know in my experience I was not sure until I realized who I trained, and that I would never receive the promotion that I know I worked hard for. If I had to explain it I would say, its like looking out of your window and it is a bright sunny day.  You dress for this sunny day only to step out of your door and realized that it is 10 degrees outside.  You can’t see it from your window because the sunshine deceived you, and once your realize how cold it is, you start feeling the chill all the way down to your bones.  Quickly you turn to go back and get a different coat only to realize that you left your keys in the house in your heavy winter coat pocket. This single experience will prevent you from ever being deceived by bright sunshine again.

So I ask.  Is a written policy all that is required to legally sweep discriminatory cultural disparities under the rug? Will the good ol' boys be able to pay some high priced attorney to “write” policy in such a way as to enforce the glass ceiling, maintain substandard pay based on gender, age, and or race, thereby maintaining the status quo for the privileged few?  Will oppressive corporate culture sustain itself allowing the good ol' boys to remain in charge and responsible for deciding who succeeds and who labors.  This case is about more than these six courage women.  Corporate Policy should be reviewed and rewritten to accommodate America’s multicultural, multiethnic and multiracial views where everyone should have the opportunity to flourish, collaborate new ideas and concepts in an attempt to realize one’s personal American dream.

Please post any experiences, comments or thoughts that you might have.  I would love to hear your personal stories.

All post are moderated.

Related articles

• Supreme Court Class-Action Discrimination Case? (feministphilosophers.wordpress.com)
• High court appears to favor Wal-Mart in gender-bias case (chron.com)
• Supreme Court Questions Wal-Mart Lawsuit (time.com)
• Supreme Court wrestles with sheer size of suit against Wal-Mart - Christian Science Monitor (news.google.com)