Electronic Privacy Information Center  

Social Networking Privacy

Background | News | Resources

 

Latest News/Events

Background

Social networking Web sites, such as MySpace, Facebook, and Friendster have become established forums for keeping in contact with old acquaintances and meeting new ones. Users can create their own Web page and post details about themselves: where they went to school, their favorite movie titles, and their relationship status. They can link to friends on the same site, whose photos, names, and perhaps a brief description, will also appear on the Web page. While these Web sites are useful tools for exchanging information, there has been growing concern over breaches in privacy caused by these social networking services. Many users feel that their personal details are being circulated far more widely than they would like. In September 2006, Facebook's recently introduced News Feed feature spurred additional privacy concerns from users. Over 700,000 users signed an online petition demanding the company discontinue the feature, stating that this compromised their privacy.

Who Gets Access?

Social networking sites give their users an easy way to share information about themselves. However, many users are quickly finding that the information they intend to share with their friends can all too easily find its way into the hands of the authorities, strangers, the press, and the public at large. For example, job recruiters are looking to these sites as well as performing more traditional background checks on potential employees. Performing a search using these sites may provide a lot of unedited information about a person.

Many sites restrict who can join a site, and therefore access a user's information. Friendster, for example, requires that all its users be over 16, and this requirement is flagged on the registration form. Other Web sites only include age stipulations in their terms of use. Facebook requires a user to show that he or she is a member of a given community before adding them to that network of users. However, the ease with which digital information can be copied and distributed means that anyone within the authorized group may still pass the information along to others. Other sites are more exclusive in their membership. Orkut, for example, requires you to be invited by an existing member before you can join.

Who can access users' information, and how easily, is affected by the search tools each site offers. MySpace allows the general public to search its database of members, using search terms such as a name, e-mail address, or school. This search can be filtered down to a particular country or even to a postal code. If users included in the search results have not changed their privacy settings from the default level, searchers can view their full profiles. These profiles may include personal information such as occupation, hometown, sexual orientation, ethnicity, and religion, as well as photos of users, and their friends or family.

Facebook has a more limited search feature. Users must be registered with the site to conduct a search, and can only view the profiles of those in their network, or of those already on their list of contacts. Some profiles viewed in this way include cell phone numbers and postal addresses. E-mail addresses always appear on Facebook profiles. Friendster also restricts searches to members. However, members can view other users' full profiles, whether they are on the member's contact list or not. Notably, if the person searched for does not turn up in the Friendster database, the Friendster search engine provides a direct link to a data broker, which offers to search for the person.

Users who expect their information to be viewed only by people they know may be dismayed to realize how broadly their personal data is disseminated. Once it is published online, they retain little control over it. While a person's real-world friends may not all have the same level of access to that person's personal information, the hundreds of "friends" on a social networking profile all have the same status, and access to everything posted online.

Default privacy settings on individual accounts allow a great deal of information to be displayed to anyone who views a profile; personal features such as blogs and comments would be accessed by anyone viewing a profile page. If the default settings were set at a higher level, users would immediately have more control. A user who did not want every detail of his or her profile available to those outside their network of friends, or who did not want to allow photographs on his or her profile page to be downloaded, for example, would not automatically be consenting to these actions as soon as he or she set up a profile page.

Hand in hand with this fact goes the possibility that any one of a user's several hundred "friends" can download this information and use it wherever and however they wish.  In fact, access can extend beyond friends and members. Users need to realize that prospective employers, job recruitment agencies, law enforcement, and members of academic staff, can gain access to photographs, comments and information posted on profile pages, whether or not this information comports with the image you would like to portray to the world outside the network.

Control of Information: The Means of Dissemination Matters

In September 2006, a change made by Facebook to how it distributed information caused an uproar among users. The change involved the introduction of a News Feed feature that gathered information on the actions of all of a user's contacts and compiled it into a chronological list on the user's home page. In response to the new feature, a grassroots movement began among Facebook's users. Students Against Facebook News Feed, one of many groups that petitioned against the new feature claimed in its' mission statement that Facebook "went a bit too far this time." Thousands of users voiced their complaints about the News Feed. "[Before,] you could make silly Facebook groups without having to worry about who might find out…It's starting to feel like there's too many tags on you. It's like you have to cover your tracks," one user said.

Many groups were set up on Facebook to campaign against this feature. According to one group, "any user of this Web site may and often does have 'friends' who they barely know, if at all. Some people have friend counts in the four, five, and six hundreds. Is it right for Facebook to automatically broadcast a break up with a boyfriend or a denied friendship-add to all those most peripheral of relationships?" The comments of those who joined the various groups echoed the general dissatisfaction among users. "The new features are almost like it's trying to make me be a stalker even though I don't want to," said one user.

Although they had already published information on their sites, the protesting Facebook users recognized that privacy can be incorporated in the ways that information is distributed, and not just in who is permitted to see the information. In response to the negative reaction to News Feed, Facebook apologized. "Somehow we missed (the) point with News Feed and Mini-Feed and we didn't build in the proper privacy controls right away," Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Facebook, said.

Users also objected to the fact that Facebook allowed News Feed to begin distributing their information without any warning. Users had no notice of the new feature and, more importantly, were not given the opportunity to decide whether they wanted their information to be shared in this way. This illustrates the problems that may result from using an opt-out system. Opt-out systems assume consent in the absence of an affirmative act by the user, and so are less preferable to opt-in systems. An opt-in system gives the user more control, by allowing users to flag the specific disclosures they wish to activate. An opt-out system, on the other hand, allows widespread sharing of information, sometimes unknown to the user. This forces users to take the time to find and deactivate each disclosure in turn, to attain their desired level of security. 

The privacy controls enabled by Facebook are more opt-out than opt-in. Default settings still disseminate most profile changes to all of a user's contacts. Facebook's solution still allows for those who do not bother to read through the "my privacy" section, located on the left hand side of the profile page, to end up sharing more than they expect.

Privacy Policies

Like many Web sites that collect user information, the aforementioned social networking Web sites have privacy policies. However, there are some problems. These policies are disclaimers produced by a Web site, that become waivers once the user accepts them. By accepting the terms of the policy, the user volunteers to relinquish some known right or privilege they may have. If a user felt the Web site had broken promises it made in the privacy policy, it is doubtful that the user could sue the Web site for breach of contract on the basis of the policy. These policies also contain loopholes. Problems with these policies include a lack of visibility, insufficient information on how the Web sites change their policies, the lack of independent reviewers to monitor these Web sites, and unspecific details of whom the Web sites share user information.  

One problem is that these policies are difficult for users to find and read. Although reading these policies is part of the registration process, they may not be specified on the registration form. The privacy policy may just be mentioned in the Terms of Use of a Web site. Providing users with a box to tick to indicate they have read and accepted a privacy policy is not enough. All three Web sites should make their privacy policies more obvious and users need should be encouraged by the Web sites to actively read through what they are agreeing to.

Another problem with privacy policies is that they are fluid, and may be altered by the Web site. All of these Web sites state that from time to time changes may be made to their privacy policies, which will be posted on the site. It is never specified how long these changes would be posted for, or where. Notice alone is not enough. The changes should be explained to users, along with any specific results the changes incur. Another manifestation of this problem is that not only can terms change, but Web sites can also reset user preferences, and place them back at default level.

The only one of these sites to overtly use a third party to review its privacy policy is Facebook. Facebook pays to be a licensee of the TRUSTe Privacy Program. However, TRUSTe’s program suffers several flaws. In the past, TRUSTe has not punished their licensees who have, in TRUSTe’s own opinion, compromised consumer trust and privacy. TRUSTe has even been described as untrustworthy by certain commentators.

These policies are also unclear about the terms by which users' details are shared with third parties. Facebook, MySpace and Friendster affirm that the user can choose to share information with marketers through sponsored groups or other on-site offers, such as competitions or sweepstakes. The Web sites reserve the right to transfer personal information to a successor in interest that acquires rights to that information as a result of the sale of the Web site. They state that they will not share users' contact information with marketers without your permission. Facebook and MySpace assert that the user can tell when another company is involved in any store or service provided, and they establish that they may share customer information with that company in connection with the member's use of that store or service. However, they do not specify how it would be so clear to the user when another company is involved. MySpace may transfer personal information to certain ad partners, if the user has explicitly requested to receive information from these ad partners. How a user would go about doing this is vague though. The Web sites do not elaborate on what information they provide to advertisers in aggregate usage information, nor do they note the potential for third parties to disaggregate the information.

Privacy policies, like all agreements, should be clear and easy to follow, so that users have a firm grasp on what they are signing-up to. Unfortunately, Web sites' privacy policies, and terms of use often seem overly cross-referenced. Users need to do a great deal of switching between the two in order to get all the details, and definitions. This makes the task of reading through the information more difficult than it needs to be.

News

Resources

EPIC Privacy Page | EPIC Home Page

Last Updated: February 14, 2008
Page URL: http://www.epic.org/privacy/socialnet/default.html