In this world of hyperconnectivity, online privacy management is not prioritized highly enough by most people.
The number of individuals we send digital messages to on the holidays likely far exceeds the number we would take the time to send traditional greeting cards. Facebook thought up a way to make this more convenient for users, so they wouldn't miss half the New Year's Eve festivities by working overtime typing out messages to friends and family.
But, with all things good, watch out for the bad. Midnight Delivery is a service that the social media site offered users so they could write New Year's warm wishes in advance to whomever they chose. They would then be automatically delivered when the clock struck midnight in their respective time zones.
Sometimes, people really only care about their privacy when it has been violated. It's easier to sit in denial ("I won't get hit"), or to pretend that you don't have any private information worth leaking, than it is to take action. But, sitting in denial is expensive.
What if hackers were to target members of the U.S. Congress and share their private information with the world? Would Congress finally feel the cold sweat of panic that the rest of us feel when our digital identities are systematically and stealthily collected and sold by corporations?
Sometimes, a little dry humor is an effective way of relating the seriousness of an issue that many people fail to recognize. Dan Tynan of ITworld took this approach in a recent article about technology and online privacy.
Yesterday we discussed Randi Zuckerberg's dismay over a private family picture being tweeted by someone after she posted it to Facebook. The sister of the social media site founder argued that it was "way uncool" and about human decency rather than online privacy. We offered the correct an alternative perspective.
However, the story didn't end there. Apparently, the hosts of NBC's morning show "Today" – Willie Geist, Savannah Guthrie and Natalie Morales – are as clueless about social media privacy, by their own admission, as millions of others around the world are. What's worse, according to a Mashable article, the three anchors have a combined 260,000 followers on Twitter and tens of thousands of fans on Facebook, making their statements yesterday even more glaring.
Geist said, "Guys, I have to confess. I don't know anything about Facebook or privacy settings."
Undoubtedly, our kids face social pressure and pay a penalty if they decide to not be on Facebook. They are often accused of not being cool, feel left out of social events and updates that are no longer communicated in person and are looked at differently (out of touch) for choosing to not join the masses.
I want to hear about the social pressures your kids have faced! Share with us in the comments below.
When online privacy baffles even Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg's sister, there should be a collective "aha moment" on the Web.
Earlier this week, Randi Zuckerberg posted a family picture to her own Facebook page that she thought would remain private. It did not. Someone tweeted a copy of that photo to the world, to which Randi replied that it was "way uncool." The Zuck's sister, who was once the company's marketing director, sent another tweet saying that this was not a matter of privacy settings, but of "human decency."
Perhaps, instead, it is about a massive lack of understanding in the world today about what online privacy is and how to protect it. Even if you post a picture to Facebook for friends only, someone can right-click-save-as and post that image on any website or social media platform they so choose. You would think that everyone in the Zuckerberg clan would be aware of that.
Previously, we discussed the whole Instagram debacle over the changes made to its terms and conditions. When company founder Kevin Systrom announced via blog post that he listened to the feedback from users and reverted a section dealing with advertising back to its original version, many thought they had won a solid victory. But did they?
Nilay Patel argues in a recent article for The Verge that this may not be the case, and his reasoning is sound.
"That certainly sounds like a win for consumers, but it's actually a loss: the newly reinstated terms of service clause is objectively worse for users than the new one, and it's worded far more vaguely – the language feels familiar and comforting, but you're giving up more rights to your photos," Patel writes.
As he points out, while the new language allowed Instagram to display photos in connection with advertising, the original terms let the company place advertising "on, about, or in conjunction with" user photos.
Federal regulators have recently made some progress with regard to protecting the privacy of minors online by adding language specific to applications and social networks – to a certain extent. However, perhaps the amendments made to the Children's Online Privacy Act (COPPA) of 1998 should not be seen as a sweeping victory for parents everywhere, but as an indication of how much farther we still have to go.
For starters, the new rules, which don't go into effect until July of 2013, only apply to children under the age of 13. This is likely of little consolation to the parents of a 15-year-old boy or girl growing up in a world where their entire lives are being documented on the internet.
Furthermore, while the new regulations handed down by the Federal Trade Commission will require websites and applications geared toward children to obtain permission from parents before gathering data on their kids, it does not hold app stores accountable.
Whenever you buy a car or a house, there's always fine print – tiny lettering that people rarely read but causes many a headache. After all, the devil is in the details.
It's the buyers' responsibility to read the fine print and the terms and conditions, and make sure they are not being taken advantage of. It's okay to ask for help if the language is confusing. Most legal documents and service agreements use phrasing that would tie the average person's tongue in knots. So, seeking advice is actually … well, advisable.
The same applies to users of social media platforms. Take a look at the recent debacle with Instagram. The company that developed the popular photo-sharing service purchased by Facebook earlier this year – for a paltry $1 billion – recently rolled out a revised set of terms and conditions. The wording was so confusing that many legal experts cited by the tech media had difficulty sifting through itall, let alone the average user.
Episode 1: Protecting Your Privacy Against Online Tracking and Surveillance
Do you realize that every step you take, every click you make online is tracked, analyzed and sold or traded to companies that want to market to you? I don’t know about you, but I get a bit fed up with outsiders having more control over my online identity and privacy than I do. This short video series, in partnership with Fox & Friends, is meant to help you take back a measure of control in your digital life.
To view the entire Browser Spies Online Privacy video series, wait until the end of each video and click on the Next Video button in the lower right-hand corner of your screen. As you watch each short video in your browser, make the necessary changes based on each simple video tip on protecting your online identity and privacy.
Get monthly strategies and tips for protecting yourself and your business delivered right to your Inbox. Signup now and you'll immediately receive John's 7 Survival Strategies for Starving Data Spies!
