#newcommunicationtechnologies

Today’s lesson in New Communications Technology, I learnt that blogging or being a blogger have more in depth avenues to the activity. Rather than just a personal opinion or sharing something, this form of communication gives more than what I thought. It is a form of communication that people of same interests can provide new information. For example, a class member of mine today shared that by reading some blogs has given them extra information when coming to exams and essay’s, nothing overly academic, but opened up other doors to broadly research a different angle of that subject.

How Does Social Networking Sites (SNS) Affect Web-Based Privacy And Data Security?

Defined as the second phase of the World Wide Web, Web 2.0 provides a space for consumer and contributor content, promoting collaboration between all participants (Grandison 2014; O’Reilly & Musser 2007). The enhanced capabilities of Web 2.0, has allowed for the development of new technologies and applications that facilitate mass participation, such as online social networking sites (SNS). SNS represent a fast growing phenomenon, with social media applications such as Facebook, Snapchat, and Twitter, experiencing exponential growth in membership (Acquisti & Gross 2006). The services provide a new range of opportunities for communication and a real-time exchange of user-generated content, which are both an integral part and an extension of our real-world selves (Grandison 2014). Social Media, although it has many benefits, comes with strong concerns for web-based privacy and data security (Acquisti & Gross 2006). This is because SNS provides a sense of intimacy in being able to communicate and maintain relationships. Therefore users are more willing to reveal personal information. The right of mandating privacy has been raised, which focuses on concerns for data storing, re-purposing, distribution to third parties, and displaying of information pertaining to oneself on the Internet. When using data from SNS, a standard of what constitutes informed consent has not been well established within the research community (Rhodes, Bowie & Hergenrather 2003). Users share a diverse range of information on SNS, which record interactions with the potential for social-data mining (Fayyad, Piatetsky-Shapiro & Smyth 1996). In privacy as subject we allocate a more or less active role to the user. The user is considered as the controlling force on who can and cannot view their personal information (Heyman , De Wolf & Pierson 2014). However, very little protection exists at present, against copying any kind of personal data, allowing for unwarranted access to private information that can be used or sold for other purposes not intended by the user, #dataprivacy. 

 Users generating content aim to create an identity as described in privacy as a subject. However, by revealing personal information, the data becomes publicly available in an unprecedented way and extent. Once published, personal data can be manipulated and distributed, increasing the likelihood of public scrutiny towards online personas and pose potential harm to physical safety by disclosing personal information (Cain 2008). In the SNS environment, social threats are seen to be rising, through active or passive use of the service (Heyman, et al. 2014). It is possible for information to be passed on without a user’s consent, as they cannot control what other users reveal about them. Typical examples involve cyber bullying or access to an unappealing photo. Due to the nature of Facebook, personal and uniquely identified profiles can pose a great threat to safety, as the platform can by default provide contact information and further data not readily available elsewhere on the internet (Acquisti & Gross 2006). The potential threat of privacy is generally overlooked or ignored by SNS users. Data collection is achievable, as security, access and privacy controls are insufficient on SNS, thus easier to identify points of contact or passwords to access confidential information (Ho, Maiga & Aimeur 2009). To protect against the transmission of confidential information from third parties, encryption is used to protect responses to online questionnaire or credit card details, but cannot protect the respondent’s IP address (Rhodes, et al. 2003). This threatens privacy and anonymity of users, as “hackers” through visited sites can determine respondent’s IP addresses. This can be relatively problematic depending on the type of information retrieved, but in all cases is still a breach of privacy, #needforprivacy. 

 The Internet has vastly expanded the scope of data collection, presenting higher commercial value for the platform providers. This is due to online profiles becoming inextricably linked to a user’s real-world self. The transitions of real-world equivalent activities are emerging online, presenting as a default interaction method (Grandison 2014). This presents an organisational threat to users, as personal information is being distributed or sold by SNS providers to third party developers. Such companies engage in data mining; a tool used for deriving knowledge out of databases (Fayyad, et al. 1996). Essentially, data mining is using personal data as a commodity to produce sellable segments for commercial purposes. The tool is used to build comprehensive profiles of each user, in order to target specific demographics, or even specific users. The tool can be seen to objectify individuals and their data profiles, as the data being recorded is de-contextualises and without meaning (Heyman, et al. 2014). By accumulating personal data, consumer profiles can be more finely targeted. Facebook insists that advertisement will become relevant to consumers as a result of distributing data (Sengupta 2013). However, the impact data collection has on privacy is disconcerting.  SNS can carry a code that enables social-networking companies to track users’ movements, even without permission (The Economist 2014).  Although data collection is anonymous, there is concern that the information might be traced to individuals. Given enough information is attached to cookies and devices, anonymous data sets can be known. Research indicates that with segmentation of data becoming highly specialised, the possibility of identifying more than half the users can be achieved by examining only two data sets (The Economist 2014).

Online privacy and security is a shared responsibility, #ittakestwo. Personal protection from social and organisational threats is possible, but can only minimise the inevitable.  The information provided even on seemingly private SNS is still public data, which could endure if maintained (Acquisti & Gross 2006). Therefore, it is vital to reconsider what is shared online, as the digital footprint will remain in affect regardless of if information is confidential or poses the potential for public scrutiny (Magid 2013).  It is suggested that online privacy settings and passwords should be revisited to alter profile visibility in order to control the circulation of content and protect private information (Islam & Al-Saggaf 2012; Magid 2013). This can protect against malicious intentions and data mining from third party developers (Islam & Al-Saggaf 2012). It is also important to only provide personal information to trusted organisations and SNS to retain anonymity or confidentiality (Magid 2013). However, the problem also rests on SNS providers to disclose any potential privacy or security threats, further adhering to SNS policies and state how data is stored, re-purposed, distributed to third parties, and how personal information is displayed on the Internet.

Since the introduction of SNS, millions of users have been attracted to the service (Acquisti & Gross 2006). As SNS provides an established place for collaboration of content and communication, there are numerous interactions between users, resulting in large quantities of information circulating on SNS (Ho, et al. 2009). A consequence of this is that private data can be distributed or manipulated by unauthorised users. There are currently no solutions to solve the flexibility of privacy, security and access controls, as well as what constitutes consent (Ho, et al. 2009; Rhodes, et al. 2003). The problem lies in the foundation of SNS, where the current focus is on the interaction and sharing of information rather than on user privacy, #makeprivacyprivate. 

  References

·         Acquisti, & Gross, 2006, 'Imagined Communities: Awareness, Information Sharing, and Privacy on the Facebook', in Privacy Enhancing Technologies, Cambridge, UK.

·         Cain, J 2008, 'Online Social Networking Issues Within Academia and Pharmacy Education', American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, vol 72, no. 1, pp. 1-10.

·         Fayyad, , Piatetsky-Shapiro, & Smyth, 1996, 'From Data Mining to Knowledge Discovery in Databases', American Association for Artificial Intelligence, vol 17, pp. 37-54.

·         Grandison, T 2014, 'Security and Privacy in Web 2.0', Proficiency Labs International, IEEE Computer Society.

·         Heyman , R, De Wolf , R & Pierson , 2014, 'Evaluating social media privacy settings for personal and advertising purposes', Emerald Insight , vol 16, pp. 18 - 32.

·         Ho, A, Maiga, & Aimeur, 2009, 'Privacy protection issues in social networking sites', International Conference on Computer Systems and Applications, IEEE.

·         Islam, MZ & Al-Saggaf, Y 2012, 'Privacy in Social Network Sites (SNS): The threats from data mining', Ethical Space: The International Journal of Communication Ethics, vol 9, no. 4, pp. 32- 40.

·         Magid, L 2013, 'Online Privacy and Security is a Shared Responsibility: Government, Industry and You', Forbes, 12 Feb 2013, viewed 2 Sep 2016, <http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrymagid/2013/02/12/online-privacy-and-security-is-a-shared-responsibility-government-industry-and-you/#163199a63439>.

·         O’Reilly, T & Musser, J 2007, Web 2.0 Principles and Best Practices, O'Reilly Media.

·         Rhodes, SD, Bowie, DA & Hergenrather, KC 2003, 'Collecting behavioural data using the world wide web: considerations for researchers', Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, vol 57, pp. 68–73.

·         Sengupta, S 2013, 'What You Didn’t Post, Facebook May Still Know', The New York Times, 25 March 2013, viewed 31 August 2016, <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/26/technology/facebook-expands-targeted-advertising-through-outside-data-sources.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0>.

Currently, I’m exploring the area of data security and privacy on social networking sites (SNS). The position that is of particular interest to me is how the extension of SNS; social media can pose risk to user privacy and data security. The elements that being explored are as following:

- The concern for personal data being manipulated and distributed once published on social media sites. Thus, increasing the possibility of public scrutiny towards users, and harm to physical safety once personal information is disclose. 

- Users on SNS tend to share a diverse range of personal information, which then are recorded by the service with the potential for data-mining. The concern for users becoming a sellable commodity to third party developers due to the increasing value and availability of information. 

- Security on SNS is a shared responsibility between the users and the providers, with users being careful with what they share and providers updating security settings and disclose how information is used or distributed. 

The conclusion that has been reached is that data obtained from users on SNS are distributed and manipulated in ways not intended by users. The responsibility relies on the user on what information is shared and on SNS to make users aware of how their data is being used. 

In order to reach such conclusion, research was conducted using scholarly sources and creditable online sources, which were easy to compile using the Diigo service.

Part of a task that we had to do in our task was pick a part of new communications and create a timeline. So, to be original (not), I’ve created one for the history of mobile phones. Unfortunately, I was unable to embed it, but I have left the link below with just a glimpse of history.

https://www.timetoast.com/timelines/1327375

During our time off during Week 3, the Census date came around. This year the Census moved to being almost completely online. Instead of large paper forms being sent out to each household, a small letter containing a specific log in number for your household arrived with detail on how to get online and complete your census. 

Typically, as is normal with anything the government tries to accomplish in this country, the 2016 Census brought about harsh criticism. The backlash began around it’s new privacy policy. Changes were being made to how long the data from the Census would be kept and also it is now compulsory to submit your name when filling out the form (Allen, 2016). Obviously, concerns like this should be taken seriously and many Australian’s used their favourite Social Media platform, Facebook, to express these concerns. 

The world has become a scary place, online threats like being hacked and having your identity stolen are very real realities for a lot of internet users. Cyber safety must be taken seriously and it was interesting to see so many Australians distrusting of the Australian Bureau of Statistics- not because the Bureau was going to leak the information or give it away to anyone that wants it, but more so, people were asking questions about whether the servers could be hacked from the outside.

This conversation becomes even more interesting when we think about how many marketers have servers filled with our information. In the midst of all of the controversy it seemed as if many Australians were not going to give over their information to a government agency whose sole purpose is to find ways to build on our infrastructure but very interested in giving over any kind of information to receive a free voucher from their favourite store.

Government advertisement for the Census was on our TV screens four months before its release on the 9th of August, making sure we were sitting at our computers that night to complete it. It had been re-vamped! It was now on the internet instead of on a sheet of paper! Come the 9th and only just over 2.3 million households were able to complete it before the site was completely shut down (Dudley-Nicholson, 2016). This in itself was only the first of the let-downs. To be quite honest, I thought it shut down the same reason why Kylie Jenner’s website shuts down every time she has a restock; because the Government just couldn’t create a strong enough website to allow the entire Australian population to complete their Census. But it was a lot more than that.

Turns out it was hackers, trying to mess with the Government, and I feel this only made the situation worse. The uproar on privacy was enormous, with people anxious as to whether their information had been collected by HACKERS! This only brought about the topic of privacy on to a national level, and it makes you question whether such an important collection of data should be online, for unauthorised people to take their pick at. We still vote for our Prime Minister on a piece of paper, so why did the Census change? Whilst the Australian Bureau of Statistics state on their website, “The ABS never has and never will release identifiable Census data,” that certainly doesn’t stop people from trying to retrieve it (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2016). I would definitely put it up there as one of the Governments biggest flops in their attempt to be technologically advanced.

To be honest, I don’t think it was quite time to make that jump. The thought was nice, but in saying that it’s mostly the younger generations that are all hip with technology, and who in the household sits down and does the Census? I’ll leave that unfortunate job to Mum and Dad! Not all generations are as savvy with technology as my generation, especially the older generations. My grandparents who are surrounded by grandchildren that can do anything on a computer still struggle with their iCloud accounts. This then leads to the third let-down of this years Census. After the website malfunction, the Census was back up and running two days later. So far, there have been over 3 million households that have completed the Census, (Uhlmann, 2016). It’s now been a week later, and only just over HALF of the Australian households have completed it, meaning there isn’t a lot of data for the ABS to go off, (Dudley-Nicholson, 2016). You can already tell they’re a little worried, because Government advertisement is back up again pressing people to complete the Census, with the subtle inclusion of, “Remember, your data is safe,” making a sneaky appearance in all of them.  The biggest issue is people cannot be bothered. Like everything in technology, if you don’t get it right away, people lose interest. Or as my Granddad so wonderfully put it, “I sat down and I tried and it failed. So stuff it.” This just means the ABS have another 5 years to improve their systems for next time, and I wish them luck.

This TED talk is a perfect example of what I was discussing in my latest blog post. The internet allows you to communicate with the world, but most of us only want to communicate with those that are important in our lives, to stay connected to them, to stay intimate.