When comparing boxers about to duke it out in the arena, it’s common practice to look at their stats:
Facebook holds accounts for over 500 million people.
The United States Government governs over 313 million people.
You break a Facebook law, Facebook locks up your account.
You break a government law, the government locks you up.
In this match, there are no underdogs. Only gorillas. Gorillas who have tangoed before.
In 2011, Facebook captured national attention when they reached a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), who charged that Facebook “deceived consumers by telling them they could keep their information on Facebook private.” While this settlement may seem like the Government is just now getting involved in Facebook’s affairs, in reality, Facebook has been on the Government’s radar for quite some time.
The FTC’s investigation stemmed from a 2009 complaint from several privacy-affiliated organizations including the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC). The complaint accused Facebook of changing their privacy settings and then not alerting their users to the change. In addition, Facebook also allegedly changed their default settings, so that they “were set to the widest level of sharing possible.” This supposedly made users not only unaware of the changes but also oblivious to how much sharing they were actually doing.
In 2010, Facebook found itself in trouble with the law again, this time in California. Facebook users banded together to sue Facebook in a class action lawsuit, alleging that Facebook violated its users’ privacy by sharing information to companies about users who clicked on their ads.
California is also the state that currently has a privacy bill coming up through legislation that would prohibit Facebook from accessing users’ telephone numbers, addresses and others forms of personal information without permission.
While all this information may make it look like Facebook is on the ropes, try not to hedge any bets quite yet, because Facebook is not a company to easily get knocked out.
In fact, Facebook has not only been fighting the California privacy bill, but it has also successfully quashed a majority of the 2010 class action lawsuit as well. A California judge sided with Facebook in 2011 on the basis that users could not have an expectation of privacy if they clicked on ads they are interested in. The judge also concluded that personal information is not property, which could prove to be a valuable defense in any future Facebook indiscretions.
Over the years, Facebook may have learned how to duck out of legal blows, but it also knows on to go on the offensive. In 2010, the Government began to subpoena Facebook Profiles in court cases where those documents could provide insight into witness identities, suspect alibis or even tax dealings. In many of these cases, Facebook has refused to comply with subpoenas, citing that “it has a duty to protect the privacy of its users.”
So in this corner, we have the bone-crushing king of social media platforms… Facebook! And in this corner, we have the big kahuna himself, fed full of your hard-earned tax dollars… the Government!
Who will deliver the knockout punch remains to be seen, but one thing’s clear, these two behemoths may have the juice to go all twelve rounds.
Discussion of Length: We decided that the articles should have a pretty strict word limit, so that the layout team would have an easier time fitting everything in and the articles would be consistent. The one-pagers should be no longer than 350 words. The topic papers should be no longer than 500 words. The company articles should be no longer than 750.
Discussion of Attribution: We’re not sure of the best way to do attribution yet, so everyone be sure to keep track of all of your sources. We would like everyone to include links of all the sources, but as for attributions within the articles, that’s still up for debate, so if anyone has ideas, let us know!
Discussion of Style: Please use AP style in all of your articles.
Discussion of Tone: After reading some of the articles already posted, we decided that the articles that worked the best were the ones we enjoyed to read. This doesn’t mean you have to be funny or sarcastic or have a personality trait that detracts from the material, but your articles should try to have a conversationalist style that isn’t just facts about your topic.
What we need from you: To make the editing team’s lives easier, we would appreciate if all of the articles you post to the blog are FINAL DRAFTS of what you would like to include in the report. This way, we can offer you feedback if something needs to be changed and whole process will be faster. So, when you write your articles, please keep in mind the length, attribution, style, and tone of your pieces. As for the articles everyone has already posted, if you could edit them update them, that would be great. Please don’t re-post them, just update the original post and title it “(whatever your title is) FINAL.”
Please try to have your one-pagers edited and finalized by Wednesday, April 4th. Thanks guys!
-The Editorial Team
In the wake of Instant Personalization, Timeline, and Open Graph, it’s not a stretch to say that Facebook has a history of pushing the privacy boundaries… at least until someone pushes back.
In 2011, the Federal Trade Commission pushed back in its settlement, requiring Facebook to “respect the privacy wishes of its users and subjects [Facebook] to regular privacy audits for the next 20 years.” The New York Times commented that the FTC’s involvement essentially introduced “friction” to Facebook’s frictionless sharing, but in no way was it the end to Facebook’s skirmishes with privacy. In fact, if Facebook only had its eye on resistance from government agencies, it might make the mistake of overlooking a powerful opponent in the American Civil Liberties Union.
According to their website, the ACLU is an organization that works within the court system to preserve the constitutional “individual rights and liberties” guaranteed to every American citizen. With Facebook and privacy continuing to be at odds, it’s an easy fit for the ACLU, and as a result, the organization has consistently found itself representing complainants in many Facebook privacy cases.
Even back in 2009, the ACLU was very concerned about the information that users put on Facebook. The ACLU called Facebook’s restrictions on data collection by application developers “simply inadequate.” Their concern was that application developers could create something as innocuous as a Facebook Quiz and then use that to get access to a user’s information which could then be packaged, sold, or even turned over to the authorities.
While this concern is present today, what is more pressing to the ACLU is the increasing instances of authoritative organizations pressuring individuals to turn over their Facebook account information and passwords.
In 2010, the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services asked a former employee for his Facebook account information and password after the employee sought to reestablish his employment. Supposedly, the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services was looking for any “gang affiliations” the former employee might have, but the ACLU called such actions “appalling.”
There has also recently been a case where a student was forced to give school officials her Facebook password, because she was accused of having an inappropriate conversation with another student on Facebook. The ACLU is currently representing the student in a lawsuit against the school.
Facebook’s response to this new trend has been swift. It is now a violation of Facebook’s Statement of Rights and Responsibilities to share or solicit a Facebook password. The ACLU now has a partner in its lobby for congress to pass legislation ensuring protection of passwords from employers, schools, government, law enforcement, and any other organization in a position to request such information.
So, in this instance, Facebook and ACLU find themselves strange bedfellows, because if there’s something Facebook can’t stand it’s someone other than Facebook violating its users’ privacy.
In 2011, The New York Times‘ circulation reached 1.2 million people.
The Wall Street Journal’s circulation reached 2.11 million people.
Facebook’s circulation reached 500 million people.
It’s not a leap to say that news organizations would love to harness the power of Facebook, unfortunately few have found an effective means to do so. However, for those looking to partner with the social media giant, the success of the Washington Post Social Reader is one that cannot be ignored.
Launched in 2011, the Washington Post Social Reader Facebook application is currently used by 11 million people. It instantly shares articles you read with your Facebook friends, and shares articles your Facebook friends read with you, creating a “socially powered newswire of intriguing articles.” It also recommends other articles based on what articles a user has previously read, allowing for a better understanding of a “user’s preferences with repeat usage.”
Most importantly however, is the fact the Social Reader allows users to look at full articles without leaving their Facebook page. Users also don’t have to pay for the articles they view.
The Washington Post Social Reader has no advertisements. For many stories, it doesn’t even direct the user to content from its own site but instead uses content from partner sites like Mashable, the Associated Press, and Global Post. The average individual may question what the Washington Post may even get out of an application like Social Reader, but the answer is data. When users get the Social Reader application, it asks for permissions, but more importantly specific permissions.
Like any good app, it doesn’t ask for information the creating organization doesn’t need. For example, since the Washington Post is an organization built on its readership, it has no need for information dealing with a user’s Facebook pictures or status updates. Asking for only specific information, instead of access to everything, shortens the number of permissions, which may make users feel more at ease with the app they are allowing on their Facebook page.
Since the Social Reader shares articles a user reads with their Facebook friends, privacy settings are included to where users can decide what groups of their friends are allowed to see the articles a user reads. This impacts the reach of the Social Reader, because not only can it be limited to certain groups of friends, but if a friend wants to read an article that a user’s Social Reader shares with them, they must also allow the Social Reader app.
It is also important to note that by using the Washington Post Social Reader, users are automatically upgraded to Facebook Timeline, the new version of a Facebook profile, which allows users to share more information about themselves over the course of their life.
My name’s Andrea Feminella, and if I could boil myself down into one word right now, it would be busy or buried or suffering from a terrible case of graduate student osmosis, but that is considerably more words than just one.
In any case, I’m up to my ears in scholarly research, so my time is limited at best. My morning routine is down to an efficient science where I wake up, have my coffee, and like a good functioning member of society, check my Facebook. See, I don’t have time to comb the internet news anymore, and with my few precious seconds of me time, I prefer to be social. This sometimes is a problem though, because the more I look at friends’ status updates, the more I realize how out of touch I am with what everyone’s talking about.
There was an earthquake in Acapulco?
Mauritania’s a country?
Who is Trayvon Martin?
….Peyton Manning is a Bronco?
Blah. Now I wish I could keep myself in the loop with my friends, but it’s exhausting, and I have no time.
Then I heard about CNN.com’s social reader.
I like CNN.com, their online news is great, and come on, it’s CNN! So I download it, and it notifies me whenever my friends are talking about one of CNN’s hot topics. Since the hot topics today are as follows
the CNN.com social reader notices when my friends Megan and Ashley are commenting how “messed up that Trayvon Martin situation” is. It then notifies my Facebook wall when I go to check it in the morning.
“Andrea, your friends are talking about TRAYVON MARTIN
Here’s what you need to know:
- 911 tapes capture FL teen’s last moments
- Family of slain boy outraged shooter remains free
- Fatal shooting of FL teen turned over to state attorney
Like what you read? Send it to Ashley and Megan!”
With this notification, all I need to do is click on these links, and I know exactly why that Trayvon Martin situation is so “messed up.”
I send the latest story to Ashley and Megan, so they can read up on all the developments, and in the time it takes for me to drink my morning coffee, I’m caught up on the news my friends are posting about.
So a lot has already been covered, and I think all of the previously mentioned topics are great candidates for articles. Here’s a few more to add into the mix:
An article about how other companies are using Opengraph technology: For those companies that err on the side of caution when it comes to Big Data, it might be beneficial to show them what other companies are doing to take Big Data to the next level.
An article about the possible online privacy bill of rights currently brewing in the White House: This article would show how Big Data retains the anonymity of participants while collecting information that benefits the companies that use it. It would also show the difference between aggregate data, which is perfectly acceptable to use, versus identifiable data, which most likely would violate the online privacy bill of rights.
I absolutely agree with Jackie’s opinion to include Moneyball as a chapter. Getting companies to understand our definition of efficiency is crucial to the client recruitment package as a whole.
Kelsi also had a great point about including the regression equation in order to figure out a company’s y. I’m not sure if it should be in our individual chapters or in the mini-articles at the beginning, but regardless, this information should definitely be included.
My personal opinion is that we need to include some of the assumed pitfalls of Big Data. If it has an reputation, we need to address it head-on in order to ease future clients’ concerns. Show them the their competitors using it. Show them the controversy, and then diffuse it with the true facts surrounding Big Data. Our opening articles should be informative but should also advocate the technology we’re trying to sell. If the clients are comfortable and they like what we tell them, why wouldn’t they go with us?