Privacy... not so private?
After reading Reyman's "User Data on the Social Web: Authorship, Agency, and Appropriation" article, I must say I am a little miffed. It seems that the tacit agreements made to use a software or tool are written quite ambiguously, and in the corporations' favor. It's not that this is new information; I remember some of the outrages mentioned in the article, like the Facebook privacy debate of 2010.
I guess one of the things that gets me most worked up in this article is that it seems these large companies make things intentionally difficult to discern what they have control over, what the user has control of, and how the user can opt in or out of certain features, functions...and how to do so. This excerpt from Reyman's article really emphasizes this:
"Facebook’s Data Use Policy, for instance, does not discuss at length the issue of users giving consent; in fact, the only mention of user consent for the appropriation of data is in this statement: “Granting us this permission not only allows us to provide Facebook as it exists today, but it also allows us to provide you with innovative features and services we develop in the future that use the information we receive about you in new ways” (“Information We Receive and How It Is Used”). It is not clear how permission is granted or even what “this permission” specifically refers to; indeed, further reading of Facebook’s policies reveals that the company appears to assume ownership over users’ data as it is created, and that users appear merely to be granting pro forma permission to use it. Facebook Terms and Policies states simply that these (and others) are “[t]erms you agree to when you use Facebook.” User consent, therefore, does not require users to take an active role in understanding their rights and responsibilities or take a specific action to provide consent, but rather requires only that users sign up for and use the service."
Wow...
Many of these large corporations set the default permissions to allow them to use the data, and make it difficult for a novice user to find the control settings to manage/customize the privacy settings. The separation of content and data aggregation seem to be at the root of this, though without user content, there is no data to derive and aggregate. Technology-driven aggregates are considered to be separate from the content used in the aggregation. While the "Consumer Data Privacy in a Networked World" While House paper signed by Obama certainly is a starting point, providing a "code of conduct"for developers, we still have a long way to go. To create a more ethical balance, I agree with the author in that we should be striving for "an alternative system that increases transparency in data-mining practices and offers more user-driven environments where users themselves are involved in data management and the policy-making activities surrounding social technologies."
I guess one of the things that gets me most worked up in this article is that it seems these large companies make things intentionally difficult to discern what they have control over, what the user has control of, and how the user can opt in or out of certain features, functions...and how to do so. This excerpt from Reyman's article really emphasizes this:
"Facebook’s Data Use Policy, for instance, does not discuss at length the issue of users giving consent; in fact, the only mention of user consent for the appropriation of data is in this statement: “Granting us this permission not only allows us to provide Facebook as it exists today, but it also allows us to provide you with innovative features and services we develop in the future that use the information we receive about you in new ways” (“Information We Receive and How It Is Used”). It is not clear how permission is granted or even what “this permission” specifically refers to; indeed, further reading of Facebook’s policies reveals that the company appears to assume ownership over users’ data as it is created, and that users appear merely to be granting pro forma permission to use it. Facebook Terms and Policies states simply that these (and others) are “[t]erms you agree to when you use Facebook.” User consent, therefore, does not require users to take an active role in understanding their rights and responsibilities or take a specific action to provide consent, but rather requires only that users sign up for and use the service."
Wow...
Many of these large corporations set the default permissions to allow them to use the data, and make it difficult for a novice user to find the control settings to manage/customize the privacy settings. The separation of content and data aggregation seem to be at the root of this, though without user content, there is no data to derive and aggregate. Technology-driven aggregates are considered to be separate from the content used in the aggregation. While the "Consumer Data Privacy in a Networked World" While House paper signed by Obama certainly is a starting point, providing a "code of conduct"for developers, we still have a long way to go. To create a more ethical balance, I agree with the author in that we should be striving for "an alternative system that increases transparency in data-mining practices and offers more user-driven environments where users themselves are involved in data management and the policy-making activities surrounding social technologies."
Here comes the question: Will everybody read through all the terms and conditions before they use tools? In this course, I registered many tools. I just clicked accept, because I need the account. Here is the term: if you want to use this app, accept everything; if you don't want to accept, then don't use the app.
ReplyDeleteHi Morning Evening!
DeleteExactly the concerns I have, and I think we all should have. I really appreciated Reyman's last section of this article, where she proposed an alternative to the way things are going now...Thanks for commenting!