Privacy concerns with social networking services
This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)(Learn how and when to remove this template message)
Since the arrival of early social networking sites in the early 2000s, online social networking platforms have expanded exponentially, with the biggest names in social media in the mid-2010s being Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and SnapChat. The massive influx of personal information that has become available online and stored in the cloud has put user privacy at the forefront of discussion regarding the database’s ability to safely store such personal information. The extent to which users and social media platform administrators can access user profiles has become a new topic of ethical consideration, and the legality, awareness, and boundaries of subsequent privacy violations are critical concerns in the advance of the technological age.
A social network is a social structure made up of a set of social actors (such as individuals or organizations), sets of dyadic ties, and other social interactions between actors. Privacy concerns with social networking services is a subset of data privacy, involving the right of mandating personal privacy concerning storing, re-purposing, provision to third parties, and displaying of information pertaining to oneself via the Internet. Social network security and privacy issues result from the astronomical amounts of information these sites process each day. Features that invite users to participate in—messages, invitations, photos, open platform applications and other applications are often the venues for others to gain access to a user's private information. In addition, the technologies needed to deal with user's information may intrude their privacy. More specifically, In the case of Facebook.  Unfortunately, the flaws render the system to be almost indefensible. "The question for social networks is resolving the difference between mistakes in implementation and what the design of the application platform is intended to allow", said David Evans, Assistant Professor of Computer Science at the University of Virginia. Moreover, there is also the question of who should be held responsible for the lack of user privacy? According to Evan, the answer to the question is not likely to be found, because a better regulated API would be required for Facebook "to break a lot of applications, [especially when] a lot of companies are trying to make money off [these] applications". Felt agrees with her conclusion, because "there are marketing businesses built on top of the idea that third parties can get access to data and user information on Facebook".
The advent of the Web 2.0 has caused social profiling and is a growing concern for internet privacy. Web 2.0 is the system that facilitates participatory information sharing and collaboration on the Internet, in social networking media websites like Facebook and MySpace. These social networking sites have seen a boom in their popularity beginning in the late 2000s. Through these websites many people are giving their personal information out on the internet.
These social networks keep track of all interactions used on their sites and save them for later use. Issues include cyberstalking, location disclosure, social profiling, 3rd party personal information disclosure, and government use of social network websites in investigations without the safeguard of a search warrant.
- 1 History
- 2 Causes
- 3 Privacy concerns
- 4 Potential dangers
- 5 Reading a privacy statement in terms and conditions
- 6 Key points to protect social networking privacy
- 7 Social networks
- 7.1 Facebook
- 7.2 Instagram
- 7.3 Swarm
- 7.4 Spokeo
- 7.5 Twitter
- 7.6 Teachers and MySpace
- 7.7 Other sites
- 7.8 Internet privacy and Blizzard Entertainment
- 7.9 Snapchat
- 8 Response to criticism
- 9 See also
- 10 References
- 11 External links
Before social networking sites exploded over the past decade, there were earlier forms of social network technologies that included: online multiplayer games, blog sites, newsgroups, mailings lists and dating services. They created a backbone for the new modern sites. Yet, since the start there existed an issue of privacy. In 1996, a young woman in New York City was on a first date with an online acquaintance and later sued for sexual harassment, after her date tried to play out some of the sexual fantasies they had discussed while online. This is just an early example of many more issues to come regarding internet privacy.
In the past, social networking sites primarily consisted of the capability to chat with others in a chat room, which was far less popular than social networks today. People using these sites were seen as "techies" unlike users in the current era. One of the early privacy cases was in regards to MySpace, due to "stalking of minors, bullying, and privacy issues", which inevitably led to the adoption of "age requirements and other safety measures". It is very common in society now for events such as stalking and "catfishing" to occur.
According to Kelly Quinn, “the use of social media has become ubiquitous, with 73% of all U.S. adults using social network sites today and significantly higher levels of use among young adults and females." Social media sites have grown in popularity over the past decade, and they only continue to grow. A majority of the United States population uses some sort of social media site.
There are several causes that contribute to the invasion of privacy throughout social networking platforms. It has been recognized that “by design, social media technologies contest mechanisms for control and access to personal information, as the sharing of user-generated content is central to their function." This proves that social networking companies need private information to become public so their sites can operate. They require people to share and connect with each other. This may not necessarily be a bad; however, one most just be aware of the privacy concerns. Even with privacy settings, posts on the internet can still be shared with people beyond a user's followers or friends. One reason for this is that “English law is currently incapable of protecting those who share on social media from having their information disseminated further than they intend." Information always has the chance to be unintentionally spread online. Once something is posted on the internet, it becomes public and is no longer private. Users can turn privacy settings on for their accounts;however, that does not guarantee that information will not go beyond their intended audience. Pictures and posts can be saved and posts may never really get deleted. “In 2013, the Pew Research Center found that 60% of teenage Facebook users have private profile;” this proves that privacy is definitely something that people still wish to obtain.
A person's life becomes much more public because of social networking. Social media sites have allowed people to connect with many more people than with just in person interactions. People can connect with users from all across the world that they may never have the chance to meet in person. This can be a positive aspect; however, this also arises many concerns about privacy. Information can be posted about a person that they do not want getting out. In the novel It’s Complicated, the author explains that some people “believe that a willingness to share in public spaces—and, most certainly, any act of exhibitionism and publicity—is incompatible with a desire for personal privacy." Once something is posted on the internet, it becomes accessible to multiple people and can even be shared beyond just assumed friends or followers. Many employers now look at a person's social media before hiring them for a job or position. Social media has become a tool that people use to find out information about a person's life. Someone can learn a lot about a person based on what they post before they even meet them once in person. The ability to achieve privacy is a never ending process. Boyd describes that “achieving privacy requires the ability to control the social situation by navigating complex contextual cues, technical affordances , and social dynamics." Society is constantly changing; therefore, the ability to understand social situations to obtain privacy regularly has to be changed.
Various levels of privacy offered
Social networking sites vary in the levels of privacy offered. For some social networking sites like Facebook, providing real names and other personal information is encouraged by the site (onto a page is known as a 'Profile'). This information usually consists of the birth date, current address, and telephone number(s). Some sites also allow users to provide more information about themselves such as interests, hobbies, favorite books or films, and even relationship status. However, there are other social network sites, such as Match.com, where most people prefer to be anonymous. Thus, linking users to their real identity can sometimes be rather difficult. Nevertheless, individuals can sometimes be identified with face re-identification. Studies have been done on two major social networking sites, and it is found that by overlapping 15% of the similar photographs, profile pictures with similar pictures over multiple sites can be matched to identify the users.
“According to research conducted by the Boston Consulting Group, privacy of personal data is a top issue for 76 percent of global consumers and 83 percent of U.S. consumers.”
For sites that do encourage information disclosure, it has been noted that majority of the users have no trouble disclosing their personal information to a large group of people. In 2005, a study was performed to analyze data of 540 Facebook profiles of students enrolled at Carnegie Mellon University. It was revealed that 89% of the users gave genuine names, and 61% gave a photograph of themselves for easier identification. Majority of users also had not altered their privacy setting, allowing a large number of unknown users to have access to their personal information (the default setting originally allowed friends, friends of friends, and non-friends of the same network to have the full view of a user's profile). It is possible for users to block other users from locating them on Facebook, but this must be done by individual basis, and would, therefore, appear not to be commonly used for a wide number of people. Most users do not realize that while they may make use of the security features on Facebook the default setting is restored after each update. All of this has led to many concerns that users are displaying far too much information on social networking sites which may have serious implications on their privacy. Facebook was criticized due to the perceived laxity regarding privacy in the default setting for users.
The “Privacy Paradox” is a phenomenon that occurs when individuals, who state that they have concerns about their privacy online, take no action to secure their accounts. Furthermore, while individuals may take extra security steps for other online accounts, such as those related to banking or finance, this does not extend to social media accounts. Some of these basic or simple security steps would include deleting cookies, browser history, or checking one’s computer for spyware. Some may attribute this lack of action to “third-person bias”. This occurs when people are aware of risks, but then do not believe that these risks apply or relate to them as individuals. Another explanation is a simple risk reward analysis. Individuals may be willing to risk their privacy to reap the rewards of being active on social media. Oftentimes, the risk of being exploited for the private information shared on the internet is overshadowed by the rewards of exclusively sharing personal information that bolsters the appeal of the social media user.
In the study by Van der Velden and El Emam, teenagers are described as “active users of social media, who seem to care about privacy, but who also reveal a considerable amount of personal information.” This brings up the issue of what should be managed privately on social media, and is an example of the Privacy Paradox. This study in particular looked at teenagers with mental illness and how they interact on social media. Researchers found that “it is a place where teenage patients stay up-to-date about their social life—it is not seen as a place to discuss their diagnosis and treatment.” Therefore, social media is a forum that needs self-protection and privacy. Privacy should be a main concern, especially for teens who may not be entirely informed about the importance and consequences of public versus private use. For example, the “discrepancy between stated privacy concerns and the disclosure of private information.”
Users are often the targets as well as the source of information in social networking. Users leave digital imprints during browsing of social networking sites or services. It has been identified from few of online studies conducted, that users trust websites and social networking sites. As per trust referred, "trust is defined in (Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman, 1995) as "the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party" (p. 712)". A survey was conducted by Carnegie Mellon University, a majority of users provided their living city, phone numbers among other personal information, while user is clearly unaware of consequences of sharing certain information. Adding to this insight, is the social networking users are from various cities, remote villages, towns, cultures, traditions, religions, background, economic classes, education background, time zones and so on that highlight the significant gap in awareness.
The survey results of the paper suggest, "These results show that the interaction of trust and privacy concern in social networking sites is not yet understood to a sufficient degree to allow accurate modeling of behavior and activity. The results of the study encourage further research in the effort to understand the development of relationships in the online social environment and the reasons for differences in behavior on different sites."
As per reference, a survey conducted among social networking users at Carnegie Mellon University was indicative of following as reasons for lack of user awareness:
1) People's disregard of privacy risks due to trust in privacy and protection offered on social networking sites.
2) Availability of user's personal details to third-party tools/applications.
3) APIs and Frameworks also enable any user, who has the fair amount of knowledge to extract the user's data.
4) Cross-site forgery and other possible website threats.
There is hence a dire need for improving User's awareness swiftly, in order to address growing security and privacy concerns caused due to merely user's unawareness. Social networking sites themselves can take a responsibility and make such awareness possible by means of participatory methods by virtual online means.
Data access methods
There are several ways for third parties to access user information. Flickr is an example of a social media website that provides geotagged photos that allows users to view the exact location of where a person is visiting or staying. Geotagged photos make it easy for third party users to see where an individual is located or traveling to.
Application programming interface (API) is a set of routines, protocols, and tools for building software applications. By using query language, sharing content and data between communities and applications became much easier. APIs simplify all that by limiting outside program access to a specific set of features—often enough, requests for data of one sort or another. APIs clearly define exactly how a program will interact with the rest of the software world—saving time.
An API allows software to “speak with other software.” Furthermore, an API can collect and provide information that is not publicly accessible. This is extremely enticing for researchers due to the greater number of possible avenues of research. The use of an API for data collection can be a focal point of the privacy conversation, because while the data can be anonymous, the difficulty is understanding when it becomes an invasion of privacy. Personal information can be collected en masse, but the debate over whether it breaches personal privacy is due to the inability to match this information with specific people.
There have however been some concerns with API because of the recent scandal between Facebook and the political consulting firm, Cambridge Analytica. What happened was “Facebook allowed a third-party developer to engineer an application for the sole purpose of gathering data. And the developer was able to exploit a loophole to gather information on not only people who used the app but all their friends — without them knowing.” 
Search engines are an easy way to find information without scanning every site yourself. Keywords that are typed into a search box will lead to the results. So it is necessary to make sure that the keywords typed are precise and correct. There are many of such search engines, some of which may lead the user to fake sites which may obtain personal information or are laden with viruses. Furthermore, some search engines, like DuckDuckGo, will not violate the user's privacy.
On most social media websites, user’s geographical location can be gathered either by users (through voluntary check-in applications like Foursquare and Facebook Places) or by applications (through technologies like IP address geolocation, cellphone network triangulation, RFID and GPS). The approach used matters less than the result which holds that the content produced is coupled with the geographical location where the user produced it. Additionally, many applications attach the contents of other forms of information like OS language, device type and capture time. The result is that by posting, tweeting or taking pictures, users produce and share an enormous amount of personal information.
Benefit from data
According to what you retweet, what you like and the hashtag, Twitter can recommend some topics and advertisements. Twitter's suggestions for who to follow is done by this recommendation system. Commerce, such as Amazon, make use of users' information to recommend items for users. Recommendations are based on at least prior purchases, shopping cart, and wishlist. Affinity analysis is a data mining technique that used to understand the purchase behavior of customers.
By using machine learning method, whether a user is a potential follower of Starbucks can be predicted. In that case, it is possible to improve the quality and coverage of applications. In addition, user profiles can be used to identify similar users.
More than 1,000 companies are waiting in line to get access to millions of tweets from users that are using the popular social networking website. Companies believe that by using data mining technologies they would be able to gather important information that can be used for marketing and advertising.
According to Gary Kovacs's speech about Tracking our online trackers, when he used the internet to find an answer to a question, "We are not even 2 bites into breakfast and there are already nearly 25 sites that are tracking me", and he was navigated by 4 of them.
Studies have shown that people's right to the belief in privacy is the most pivotal predictor in their attitudes concerning online privacy.
Social profiling and 3rd party disclosure
The Privacy Act of 1974 states:
- "No agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains [subject to 12 exceptions]." 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b).
Disclosure in this context refers to any means of communication, be it written, oral, electronic or mechanical. This states that agencies are forbidden to give out, or disclose, the information of an individual without being given consent by the individual to release that information. However, it falls on the individual to prove that a wrongful disclosure, or disclosure in general, has occurred. Because of this social networking sites such as Facebook ask for permission when a third-party application is requesting the user's information.
Although The Privacy Act of 1974 does a lot to limit privacy invasion through third party disclosure, it does list a series of twelve exceptions that deem disclosure permissible:
- 1. For members of an agency who need such information "in the performance of their duties".
- 2. If the Freedom of Information Act requires such information
- 3. If the information that is disclosed "is compatible with the purpose for which it was collected".
- 4. If the Bureau of Census needs such information to complete a particular census.
- 5. If the third party explicitly informs the individual that the information collected will serve only as a form of "statistical research" and is not "individually identifiable".
- 6. If it is historically relevant to be added to the National Archives and Records Administration.
- 7. If such information was requested by a law enforcement agency.
- 8. If such information is deemed beneficial to the "health or safety of an individual".
- 9. If such information is requested by the House of Congress or by one of its subcommittees.
- 10. If such information is requested by the head of the Government Accountability Office or by one "of his authorized representatives".
- 11. If such information is requested through a court order.
- 12. If such information is requested through the Debt Collection Act.
Social profiling allows for Facebook and other social networking media websites of filtering through the advertisements, assigning specific ones to specific age groups, gender groups, and even ethnicities.
Data aggregation sites like Spokeo have highlighted the feasibility of aggregating social data across social sites as well as integrating it with public records. A 2011 study highlighted these issues by measuring the amount of unintended information leakage over a large number of users with the varying number of social networks. It identified and measured information that could be used in attacks against what-you-know security.
Studies have also pointed to most social networks unintentionally providing 3rd party advertising and tracking sites with personal information. It raises the issue of private information inadvertently being sent to 3rd party advertising sites via Referrer strings or cookies.
Civil libertarians worry that social networking sites, particularly Facebook, have greatly diminished user confidentiality in numerous ways. For one thing, when social media platforms store private data, they also have complete access to that material as well. To sustain their profitability, applications like Facebook examine and market personal information by logging data through cookies, small files that stockpile the data on someone’s device. Companies, such as Facebook, carry extensive amounts of private user information on file, regarding individuals’ , “likes, dislikes, and preferences”, which are of high value to marketers. As Facebook reveals user information to advertising and marketing organizations, personalized endorsements will appear on news feeds based on “surfing behavior, hobbies, or pop culture preferences”. For those reasons, Facebook’s critics fear that social networking companies may seek business ventures with stockholders by sharing user information in the exchange of profits. Additionally, they argue that since Facebook demonstrates an illusion of privacy presented by a “for-friends-only” type of platform, individuals find themselves more inclined to showcase more personal information online. According to the critics, users might notice that the sponsorships and commercials are tailored to their disclosed private data, which could result in a sense of betrayal.
On Facebook, there is one way to ensure protection against applications sharing personal information. On the privacy settings page, you can remove or turn off unwanted or spam applications.
Twitter has admitted that they have scanned and imported their user's phone contacts onto the website database so that they can learn more about their users. Most users were unaware that Twitter is created this way for new users to search for their friends. Twitter has stated that they will have their privacy guidelines illustrated more clearly in the future.
In 2015, after Facebook bought Instagram there was an option that Instagram could use its own users photos for ad purposes. This new policy was hidden in their user agreement. Users could opt out but the only way was to delete their account at before a certain deadline. Hiding this in their user agreement privacy agreement they were able to fool lots of people who did not understand what to look for. This is disclosure of information to third parties[disambiguation needed] because Instagram is branching out our information to others. 
Libraries in the particular, being concerned with the privacy of individuals, have debated on allowing library patrons to access social networking sites on public library computers. While only 19% of librarians reportedly express real concern over social networking privacy, they have been particularly vocal in voicing their concerns. Some have argued that the lack of privacy found on social networking sites is contrary to the ethics supported by Library organizations, and the latter should thus be extremely apprehensive about dealing with the former. Supporters of this view present their argument from the code of ethics held by both the American Library Association and the UK based Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals, which affirms a commitment to upholding privacy as a fundamental right. In 2008, a study was performed in fourteen public libraries in the UK which found that 50% blocked access to social networking sites. Many school libraries have also blocked Facebook out of fear that children may be disclosing too much information on Facebook. However, as of 2011, Facebook has taken efforts to combat this concern by deleting profiles of users under the age of thirteen.
As there is so much information provided other things can be deduced, such as the person's social security number, which can then be used as part of identity theft. In 2009, researchers at Carnegie Mellon University published a study showing that it is possible to predict most and sometimes all of an individual's 9-digit Social Security number using information gleaned from social networks and online databases. (See Predicting Social Security Numbers from Public Data by Acquisti and Gross). In response, various groups have advised that users either do not display their number, or hide it from Facebook 'friends' they do not personally know. Cases have also appeared of users having photographs stolen from social networking sites in order to assist in identity theft. There is little evidence that users of social networking sites are taking full measures to protect themselves from identity theft. For example, numerous celebrities have claimed their Twitter accounts have been hacked. According to the Huffington Post, Bulgarian IT consultant Bogomil Shopov claimed in a recent blog to have purchased personal information on more than 1 million Facebook users, for the shockingly low price of USD$5.00. The data reportedly included users' full names, email addresses, and links to their Facebook pages. The following information could be used to steal the users' identities : Full names including middle name, date of birth, hometown, relationship status, residential information, other hobbies and interest.
Preteens and early teenagers
Among all other age groups, in general, the most vulnerable victims of private-information-sharing behavior are preteens and early teenagers. There have been age restrictions put on numerous websites but how effective they are is debatable.[need quotation to verify] Findings have unveiled that informative opportunities regarding internet privacy as well as concerns from parents, teachers, and peers, play a significant role in impacting the internet user's behavior in regards to online privacy. Additionally, other studies have also found that the heightening of adolescents' concern towards their privacy will also lead to a greater probability that they will utilize privacy-protecting behaviors. In the technological culture that society is developing into, not only should adolescents' and parent's awareness be risen, but society as a whole should acknowledge the importance of online privacy.
Preteens and early teenagers are particularly susceptible to social pressures that encourage young people to reveal personal data when posting online. Teens often post information about their personal life, such as activities they are doing, sharing their current locations, who they spend time with, as well their thoughts and opinions. They tend to share this information because they do not want to feel left out or judged by other adolescents who are practicing these sharing activities already. Teens are motivated to keep themselves up to date with the latest gossip, current trends, and trending news and, in doing so they are allowing themselves to become victims of cyberbullying, stalking, and in the future, could potentially harm them when pursuing job opportunities, and in the context of privacy, become more inclined to share their private information to the public. This is concerning because preteens and teenagers are the least educated on how public social media is, how to protect themselves online, and the detrimental consequences that could come from sharing too much personal information online. As more and more young individuals are joining social media sites, they believe it is acceptable to post whatever they are thinking, as they don't realize the potential harm that information can do to them and how they are sacrificing their own privacy. "Teens are sharing more information about themselves on social media sites than they did in the past." Preteens and teenagers are sharing information on social media sites such as Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter, Pinterest, and more by posting pictures and videos of themselves unaware of the privacy they are sacrificing. Adolescents post their real name, birthdays, and email addresses to their social media profiles. Children have less mobility than they have had in the past. Everything these teenagers do online is so they can stay in the loop of social opportunities, and the concern with this is that they do this in a way that is not only traceable but in a very persistent environment that motivates people to continue sharing information about themselves as well.
California is also taking steps to protect the privacy of some social media users from users’ own judgments. In 2013, California enacted a law that would require social media sites to allow young registered users to erase their own comments from sites. This is a first step in the United States toward the “right to be forgotten” that has been debated around the world over the past decade.
Most major social networking sites are committed to ensuring that use of their services are as safe as possible. However, due to the high content of personal information placed on social networking sites, as well as the ability to hide behind a pseudo-identity, such sites have become increasingly popular for sexual predators [online]. Further, lack of age verification mechanisms is a cause of concern in these social networking platforms. However, it was also suggested that the majority of these simply transferred to using the services provided by Facebook. While the numbers may remain small, it has been noted that the number of sexual predators caught using social networking sites has been increasing, and has now reached an almost weekly basis. In worst cases children have become victims of pedophiles or lured to meet strangers.They say that sexual predators can lurk anonymously through the wormholes of cyberspace and access victim profiles online. A number of highly publicized cases have demonstrated the threat posed for users, such as Peter Chapman who, under a false name, added over 3,000 friends and went on to rape and murder a 17-year-old girl in 2009. In another case, a 12-year-old, Evergreen girl was safely found by the FBI with the help of Facebook, due to her mother learning of her daughter's conversation with a man she had met on the popular social networking application.
The potential ability for stalking users on social networking sites has been noted and shared. Popular social networking sites make it easy to build a web of friends and acquaintances and share with them your photos, whereabouts, contact information, and interests without ever getting the chance to actually meet them. With the amount of information that users post about themselves online, it is easy for users to become a victim of stalking without even being aware of the risk. 63% of Facebook profiles are visible to the public, meaning if you Google someone's name and you add "+Facebook" in the search bar you pretty much will see most of the person profile. A study of Facebook profiles from students at Carnegie Mellon University revealed that about 800 profiles included current resident and at least two classes being studied, theoretically allowing viewers to know the precise location of individuals at specific times. AOL attracted controversy over its instant messenger AIM which permits users to add 'buddies' without their knowing, and therefore track when a user is online. Concerns have also been raised over the relative ease for people to read private messages or e-mails on social networking sites. Cyberstalking is a criminal offense that comes into play under state anti-stalking laws, slander laws, and harassment laws. A cyberstalking conviction can result in a restraining order, probation, or even criminal penalties against the assailant, including jail.
Some applications are explicitly centered on "cyber stalking." An application named "Creepy" can track a person's location on a map using photos uploaded to Twitter or Flickr. When a person uploads photos to a social networking site, others are able to track their most recent location. Some smartphones are able to embed the longitude and latitude coordinates into the photo and automatically send this information to the application. Anybody using the application can search for a specific person and then find their immediate location. This poses many potential threats to users who share their information with a large group of followers.
Facebook "Places," is a Facebook service, which publicizes user location information to the networking community. Users are allowed to "check-in" at various locations including retail stores, convenience stores, and restaurants. Also, users are able to create their own "place," disclosing personal information onto the Internet. This form of location tracking is automated and must be turned off manually. Various settings must be turned off and manipulated in order for the user to ensure privacy. According to epic.org, Facebook users are recommended to: (1) disable "Friends can check me in to Places," (2) customize "Places I Check In," (3) disable "People Here Now," and (4) uncheck "Places I've Visited.". Moreover, the Federal Trade Commission has received two complaints in regards to Facebook's "unfair and deceptive" trade practices, which are used to target advertising sectors of the online community. "Places" tracks user location information and is used primarily for advertising purposes. Each location tracked allows third party advertisers to customize advertisements that suit one's interests. Currently, the Federal Trade Commissioner along with the Electronic Privacy Information Center are shedding light on the issues of location data tracking on social networking sites.
Unintentional fame can harm a person’s character, reputation, relationships, chance of employment, and privacy- ultimately infringing upon a person’s right to the pursuit of happiness. Many cases of unintentional fame have led its victims to take legal action. The right to be forgotten is a legal concept that includes removing one’s information from the media that was once available to the public. The right to be forgotten is currently enforced in the European Union and Argentina, and has been recognized in various cases in the United States, particularly in the case of Melvin v. Reid. However, there is controversy surrounding the right to be forgotten in the United States as it conflicts with the public's right to know and the Constitution’s First Amendment, restricting one’s “right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression” (Amendment I).
Privacy concerns have also been raised over a number of high-profile incidents which can be considered embarrassing for users. Various internet memes have been started on social networking sites or been used as a means towards their spread across the internet. In 2002, a Canadian teenager became known as the Star Wars Kid after a video of him using a golf club as a light sabre was posted on the internet without his consent. The video quickly became a hit, much to the embarrassment of the teenager, who claims to have suffered as a result. Along with other incidents of videos being posted on social networking sites, this highlights the ability for personal information to be rapidly transferred between users.
Issues relating to privacy and employment are becoming a concern with regards to social networking sites. As of 2008, it has been estimated by CareerBuilder.com that one in five employers search social networking sites in order to screen potential candidates (increasing from only 11% in 2006). For the majority of employers, such action is to acquire negative information about candidates. For example, 41% of managers considered information relating to candidates' alcohol and drug use to be a top concern. Other concerns investigated via social networking sites included poor communication skills, inappropriate photographs, inaccurate qualifications and bad-mouthing former employers/colleagues. However, 24% manager claimed that information found on a social networking site persuaded them to hire a candidate, suggesting that a user image can be used in a positive way.
While there is little doubt that employers will continue to use social networking sites as a means of monitoring staff and screening potential candidates, it has been noted that such actions may be illegal under in jurisdictions. According to Workforce.com, employers who use Facebook or Myspace could potentially face legal action:
If a potential employer uses a social networking site to check out a job candidate and then rejects that person based on what they see, he or she could be charged with discrimination. On August 1, 2012, Illinois joined the state of Maryland (law passed in March 2012) in prohibiting employer access to social media web sites of their employees and prospective employees. A number of other states that are also considering such prohibitory legislation (California, Delaware, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, South Carolina and Washington), as is the United States Congress. In April 2012, the Social Networking Online Protection Act (2012 H.R. 5050) was introduced in the United States House of Representatives, and the Password Protection Act of 2012 (2012 S. 3074) was introduced in the United States Senate in May 2012, which prohibit employers from requiring access to their employees' social media web sites.
With the recent concerns about new technologies, the United States is now developing laws and regulations to protect certain aspects of people’s information on different medias.[CR4] For example, 12 states in the US currently have laws specifically restricting employers from demanding access to their employees’ social media sites when those sites are not fully public. (The states that have passed these laws are Arkansas, California, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Washington.)
Monitoring of social networking sites is not limited to potential workers. Issues relating to privacy are becoming an increasing concern for those currently in employment. A number of high-profile cases have appeared in which individuals have been sacked for posting comments on social networking which have been considered disparaging to their current employers or fellow workers. In 2009, sixteen-year-old Kimberley Swann was sacked from her position at Ivell Marketing and Logistics Limited after describing her job as 'boring'. In 2008, Virgin Atlantic sacked thirteen cabin crew staff, after it emerged they used had criticized the company's safety standards and called passengers 'chavs' on Facebook. There is no federal law that we are aware of that an employer is breaking by monitoring employees on social networking sites. In fact, employers can even hire third-party companies to monitor online employee activity for them. According to an article by Read Write Web employers use the service to "make sure that employees don't leak sensitive information on social networks or engage in any behavior that could damage a company's reputation." While employers may have found such usages of social networking sites convenient, complaints have been put forward by civil liberties groups and trade unions on the invasive approach adopted by many employers. In response to the Kimberley Swann case, Brendan Barber, of the TUC union stated that:
Most employers wouldn't dream of following their staff down the pub to see if they were sounding off about work to their friends," he said. "Just because snooping on personal conversations is possible these days, it doesn't make it healthy."
Monitoring of staff's social networking activities is also becoming an increasingly common method of ensuring that employees are not browsing websites during work hours. It was estimated in 2010 that an average of two million employees spent over an hour a day on social networking sites, costing potentially £14 billion.
Social networks are designed for individuals to socially interact with other people over the Internet. However, some individuals engage in undesirable online social behaviors, which negatively impacts other people's online experiences. It has created a wide range of online interpersonal victimization. Some studies have shown that social network victimization appears largely in adolescent and teens, and the type of victimization includes sexual advances and harassment. Recent research has reported approximately 9% of online victimization involves social network activities. It has been noted that many of these victims are girls who have been sexually victimized over these social network sites. Research concludes that many of social network victimizations are associated with user behaviors and interaction with one another. Negative social behaviors such as aggressive attitudes and discussing sexual related topics motivate the offenders to achieve their goals. All in all, positive online social behaviors is promoted to help reduce and avoid online victimization.
Law enforcement prowling the networks
The FBI has dedicated undercover agents on Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, LinkedIn. One example of investigators using Facebook to nab a criminal is the case of Maxi Sopo. Charged with bank fraud, and having escaped to Mexico, he was nowhere to be found until he started posting on Facebook. Although his profile was private, his list of friends was not, and through this vector, they eventually caught him.
In recent years, some state and local law enforcement agencies have also begun to rely on social media websites as resources. Although obtaining records of information not shared publicly by or about site users often requires a subpoena, public pages on sites such as Facebook and MySpace offer access to personal information that can be valuable to law enforcement. Police departments have reported using social media websites to assist in investigations, locate and track suspects, and monitor gang activity.
On October 18, 2017, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was scheduled to begin using personal information collected using social media platforms to screen immigrants arriving in the U.S. The department made this new measure known in a posting to the Federal Register in September 2017, noting that “...social media handles, aliases, associated identifiable information and search results...” would be included in an applicant’s immigration file. This announcement, which was made relatively quietly, has received criticism from privacy advocates. The Department of Homeland Security issued a statement in late September 2017 asserting that the planned use of social media is nothing new, with one department spokesperson saying DHS has been using social media to collect information for years. According to a statement made to National Public Radio, DHS uses “...social media handles, aliases, associated identifiable information, and search results” to keep updated records on persons of interest. According to the DHS, the posting to the Federal Register was an effort to be transparent regarding information about social media that is already being collected from immigrants.
Government use of SMMS or “Social media monitoring software can be used to geographically track us as we communicate. It can chart out our relationships, networks, and associations. It can monitor protests, identify the leaders of political and social movements, and measure our influence.” SMMS is also a growing industry. SMMS “products like XI Social Discovery, Geofeedia, Dataminr, Dunami, and SocioSpyder (to name just a few) are being purchased in droves by Fortune 500 companies, politicians, law enforcement, federal agencies, defense contractors, and the military. Even the CIA has a venture fund, In-Q-Tel, that invests in SMMS technology.”
The idea of the 'mob rule' can be described as a situation in which control is held by those outside the conventional or lawful realm. In response to the News International phone hacking scandal involving News of the World in the United Kingdom, a report was written to enact new media privacy regulations.
The British author of the Leveson Report on the ethics of the British press, Lord Justice Leveson, has drawn attention to the need to take action on protecting privacy on the internet. This movement is described by Lord Justice Leveson as a global megaphone for gossip: "There is not only a danger of trial by Twitter, but also of an unending punishment, and no prospect of rehabilitation, by Google".
Foursquare, Facebook, Loopt are application which allow users to check- in and these capabilities allows a user to share their current location information to their connection. Some of them even update their travel plans on social networking applications.However, the disclosure of location information within these networks can cause privacy concerns among mobile users. Foursquare defines another framework of action for the user. It appears to be in the interest of Foursquare that users provide many personal data that are set as public. This is illustrated, among others, by the fact that, although all the respondents want high control over the (location) privacy settings, almost none of them ever checked the Foursquare privacy settings before. Although there are algorithms using encryption, k-anonymity and noise injection algorithms, its better to understand how the location sharing works in these applications to see if they have good algorithms in place to protect location privacy.
Invasive privacy agreements
Another privacy issue with social networks is the privacy agreement. The privacy agreement states that the social network owns all of the content that users upload. This includes pictures, videos, and messages are all stored in the social networks database even if the user decides to terminate his or her account.
Privacy agreements oftentimes say that they can track a user's location and activity based on the device used for the site. For example, the privacy agreement for Facebook states that "all devices that a person uses to access Facebook are recorded such as IP addresses, phone numbers, operating system and even GPS locations". One main concern about privacy agreements are the length, because they take a lot of time to fully read and understand. Most privacy agreements state the most important information at the end because it is assumed that people will not read it completely.
The ethical dilemma lies in that upon the agreement to register for SNSs, the personal information disclosed is legally accessible and managed by the sites privately established online security operators and operating systems; leaving access of user data to be "under the discretion" of the site(s) operators. Giving rise to the moral obligation and responsibility of the sites operators to maintain private information to be within user control. However, due to the legality of outsourcing of user data upon registration- without prior discretion, data outsourcing has been frequented by SNSs operating systems- regardless of user privacy settings.
Data outsourcing has been proven to be consistently exploited since the emergence of SNSs. Employers have often been found to hire individuals or companies to search deep into the SNSs user database to find "less than pleasant" information regarding applicants during the review process.
Reading a privacy statement in terms and conditions
One of the main concerns that people have with their security is the lack of visibility that policies and settings have in the social networks. It is often located in areas hard to see like the top left or right of the screen. Another concern is the lack of information that users get from the companies when there is a change in their policies. They always inform users about new updates, but it is difficult to get information about these changes.
This section explains how to read the privacy statement in terms and conditions while signing up for any social networking site.
- Who owns the data that a user posts?
- What happens to the data when the user account is closed?
- Will the profile page be completely erased when a user deletes the account?
- Where and how can a user complain in case of any breach in privacy?
- For how long is the personal information stored?
The answers to these questions will give an indication of how safe the social networking site is.
Realize the threats that will always exist
There are people out there who want—and will do just about anything—to get someone's private information. It's essential to realize that it's difficult to keep your privacy secured all the time. Among other factors, it has been observed that data loss is correlated positively with risky online behavior and forgoing the necessary antivirus and anti spyware programs to defend against breaches of private information via the internet.
Be thorough all the time
Always log out. It is dangerous to keep your device logged on since others may have access to your social profiles while you are not paying attention.
Keep your full name and address to yourself. Children's safety may be compromised if their parents post their whereabouts in a site where others know who their real identities are. The majority 93% of online users share personal information, 70% of online users share photos and videos of their own children, and 45% of online users share private videos and photos of people other than themselves. Being thorough before posting online can create a safer internet experience for children and adults.
Know the sites
Read the social networking site's fine prints. Many sites push its users to agree to terms that are best for the sites—not the users. Users should be aware about the terms in case of emergencies. Exactly how to read the terms are explained above at "Reading a Privacy Statement in Terms and Conditions" part
Make sure the social networking site is safe before sharing information. Users shouldn't be sharing information if they don't know who are using the websites since their personally identifiable information could be exposed to other users of the site.
Be familiar with the privacy protection provided. Users should take the extra time to get to know the privacy protection systems of various social networks they are or will be using. Only friends should be allowed to access their information. Check the privacy or security settings on every social networking site that they might have to use.
Encrypt devices. Users should use complex passwords on their computers and cell phones and change them from time to time. This will protect users' information in case these devices are stolen.
Install Anti-virus software. Others would be able to use viruses and other ways to invade a user's computer if he or she installed something unsafe.
Be careful about taking drastic actions
The users' privacy may be threatened by any actions. Following actions needs special attention.
(1) Adding a new friend. Facebook reports 8.7% of its total profiles are fake. A user should be sure about who the person is before adding it as a new friend.
(2) Clicking on links. Many links which looks attractive like gift cards are specially designed by malicious users. Clicking on these links may result in losing personal information or money.
(3) Think twice about posting revealing photos. A revealing photo could attract the attention of potential criminals.
Facebook has been scrutinized for a variety of privacy concerns due to changes in its privacy settings on the site generally over time as well as privacy concerns within Facebook applications. Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Facebook, first launched Facebook in 2004, it was focused on universities and only those with .edu address could open an account. Furthermore, only those within your own university network could see your page. Some argue that initial users were much more willing to share private information for these reasons. As time went on, Facebook became more public allowing those outside universities, and furthermore, those without a specific network, to join and see pages of those in networks that were not their own. In 2006 Facebook introduced the News Feed, a feature that would highlight recent friend activity. By 2009, Facebook made "more and more information public by default". For example, in December 2009, "Facebook drastically changed its privacy policies, allowing users to see each others' lists of friends, even if users had previously indicated they wanted to keep these lists private". Also, "the new settings made photos publicly available by default, often without users' knowledge".
Facebook recently updated its profile format allowing for people who are not "friends" of others to view personal information about other users, even when the profile is set to private. However, As of January 18, 2011 Facebook changed its decision to make home addresses and telephone numbers accessible to third party members, but it is still possible for third party members to have access to less exact personal information, like one's hometown and employment, if the user has entered the information into Facebook . EPIC Executive Director Marc Rotenberg said "Facebook is trying to blur the line between public and private information. And the request for permission does not make clear to the user why the information is needed or how it will be used."
Breakup Notifier is an example of a Facebook "cyberstalking" app that has recently been taken down. Essentially, the application notifies users when a person breaks up with their partner through Facebook, allowing users to instantly become aware of their friend's romantic activities. The concept became very popular, with the site attracting 700,000 visits in the first 36 hours; people downloaded the app 40,000 times. Just days later, the app had more than 3.6 million downloads and 9,000 Facebook likes.
It was only in 2008, four years after the first introduction of Facebook, that Facebook decided to create an option to permanently delete information. Until this point in time, it was only an option to deactivate a Facebook which still left the user's information within Facebook servers. After thousands of users complaints, Facebook obliged and created a tool which was located in the Help Section but later removed. To locate the tool to permanently delete a user's Facebook, he or she must manually search through Facebook's Help section by entering the request to delete the Facebook in the search box. Only then will a link be provided to prompt the user to delete his or her profile.
These new privacy settings enraged some users, one of whom claimed, "Facebook is trying to dupe hundreds of millions of users they've spent years attracting into exposing their data for Facebook's personal gain." However, other features like the News Feed faced an initial backlash but later became a fundamental and very much appreciated part of the Facebook experience. In response to user complaints, Facebook continued to add more and more privacy settings resulting in "50 settings and more than 170 privacy options." However, many users complained that the new privacy settings were too confusing and were aimed at increasing the amount of public information on Facebook. Facebook management responded that "there are always trade offs between providing comprehensive and precise granular controls and offering simple tools that may be broad and blunt." It appears as though users sometimes do not pay enough attention to privacy settings and arguably allow their information to be public even though it is possible to make it private. Studies have shown that users actually pay little attention to "permissions they give to third party apps."
Most users are not aware that they can modify the privacy settings and unless they modify them, their information is open to the public. On Facebook privacy settings can be accessed via the drop down menu under account in the top right corner. There users can change who can view their profile and what information can be displayed on their profile. In most cases profiles are open to either "all my network and friends" or "all of my friends." Also, information that shows on a user's profile such as birthday, religious views, and relationship status can be removed via the privacy settings. If a user is under 13 years old they are not able to make a Facebook or a MySpace account, however, this is not regulated.
Although Zuckerberg, the Facebook CEO, and others in the management team usually respond in some manner to user concerns, they have been unapologetic about the trend towards less privacy. They have stated that they must continually "be innovating and updating what our system is to reflect what the current social norms are." Their statements suggest that the Internet is becoming a more open, public space, and changes in Facebook privacy settings reflect this. However, Zuckerberg did admit that in the initial release of the News Feed, they "did a bad job of explaining what the new features were and an even worse job of giving you control of them."
Similar to Rotenberg's claim that Facebook users are unclear of how or why their information has gone public, recently the Federal Trade Commission and Commerce Department have become involved. The Federal Trade Commission has recently released a report claiming that Internet companies and other industries will soon need to increase their protection for online users. Because online users often unknowingly opt in on making their information public, the FTC is urging Internet companies to make privacy notes simpler and easier for the public to understand, therefore increasing their option to opt out. Perhaps this new policy should also be implemented in the Facebook world. The Commerce Department claims that Americans, "have been ill-served by a patchwork of privacy laws that contain broad gaps,". Because of these broad gaps, Americans are more susceptible to identity theft and having their online activity tracked by others.
Internet privacy and Facebook advertisements
The illegal activities on Facebook are very widespread, in particular, phishing attacks, allowing attackers to steal other people's passwords. The Facebook users are led to land on a page where they are asked for their login information, and their personal information is stolen in that way. According to the news from PC World Business Center which was published on April 22, 2010, we can know that a hacker named Kirllos illegally stole and sold 1.5 million Facebook IDs to some business companies who want to attract potential customers by using advertisements on Facebook. Their illegal approach is that they used accounts which were bought from hackers to send advertisements to friends of users. When friends see the advertisements, they will have opinion about them, because "People will follow it because they believe it was a friend that told them to go to this link," said Randy Abrams, director of technical education with security vendor Eset. There were 2.2232% of the population on Facebook that believed or followed the advertisements of their friends. Even though the percentage is small, the amount of overall users on Facebook is more than 400 million worldwide. The influence of advertisements on Facebook is so huge and obvious. According to the blog of Alan who just posted advertisements on the Facebook, he earned $300 over the 4 days. That means he can earn $3 for every $1 put into it. The huge profit attracts hackers to steal users' login information on Facebook, and business people who want to buy accounts from hackers send advertisements to users' friends on Facebook.
A leaked document from Facebook has revealed that the company was able to identify "insecure, worthless, stressed or defeated" emotions, especially in teenagers, and then proceeded to inform advertisers. While similar issues have arisen in the past, this continues to make individuals’ emotional states seem more like a commodity. They are able to target certain age groups depending on the time that their advertisements appear.
Recently, there have been allegations made against Facebook accusing the app of listening in on its users through their smartphone’s microphone in order to gather information for advertisers. These rumors have been proven to be false as well as impossible. For one, because it does not have a specific buzzword to listen for like the Amazon Echo, Facebook would have to record everything its users say. This kind of “constant audio surveillance would produce about 33 times more data daily than Facebook currently consumes”. Additionally, it would become immediately apparent to the user as their phone’s battery life would be swiftly drained by the amount of power it would take to record every conversation. Finally, it is clear that Facebook doesn’t need to listen in on its users’ conversations because it already has plenty of access to their data and internet search history through cookies.
Facebook friends study
A study was conducted at Northeastern University by Alan Mislove and his colleagues at the Max Planck Institute for Software Systems, where an algorithm was created to try and discover personal attributes of a Facebook user by looking at their friend's list. They looked for information such as high school and college attended, major, hometown, graduation year and even what dorm a student may have lived in. The study revealed that only 5% of people thought to change their friend's list to private. For other users, 58% displayed university attended, 42% revealed employers, 35% revealed interests and 19% gave viewers public access to where they were located. Due to the correlation of Facebook friends and universities they attend, it was easy to discover where a Facebook user was based on their list of friends. This fact is one that has become very useful to advertisers targeting their audiences but is also a big risk for the privacy of all those with Facebook accounts.
Facebook Emotion Study
Recently, Facebook, knowingly agreed and facilitated a controversial experiment; the experiment blatantly bypassed user privacy and demonstrates the dangers and complex ethical nature of the current networking management system. The "one week study in January of 2012" where over 600,000 users were randomly selected to unknowingly partake in a study to determine the effect of "emotional alteration" by Facebook posts. Apart from the ethical issue of conducting such a study with human emotion in the first place, this is just one of the means in which data outsourcing has been used as a breach of privacy without user disclosure.
Several issues pertaining to Facebook are due to privacy concerns. An article titled "Facebook and Online Privacy: Attitudes, Behaviors, and Unintended Consequences" examines the awareness that Facebook users have on privacy issues. This study shows that the gratifications of using Facebook tend to outweigh the perceived threats to privacy. The most common strategy for privacy protection—decreasing profile visibility through restricting access to friends—is also a very weak mechanism; a quick fix rather than a systematic approach to protecting privacy. This study suggests that more education about privacy on Facebook would be beneficial to the majority of the Facebook user population.
The study also offers the perspective that most users do not realize that restricting access to their data does not sufficiently address the risks resulting from the amount, quality and persistence of data they provide. Facebook users in our study report familiarity and use of privacy settings, they are still accepting people as "friends" that they have only heard of through other or do not know at all and, therefore, most have very large groups of "friends" that have access to widely uploaded information such as full names, birthdates, hometowns, and many pictures. This study suggests that social network privacy does not merely exist within the realm of privacy settings, but privacy control is much within the hands of the user. Commentators have noted that online social networking poses a fundamental challenge to the theory of privacy as control. The stakes have been raised because digital technologies lack "the relative transience of human memory," and can be trolled or data mined for information. For users who are unaware of all privacy concerns and issues, further education on the safety of disclosing certain types of information on Facebook is highly recommended.
Instagram tracks users' photos even if they do not post them using a geotag. The app geotags an uploaded image regardless of whether the user chose to share its location or not. Therefore, anybody can view the exact location where an image was uploaded on a map. This is concerning due to the fact that most people upload photos from their home or other locations they frequent a lot, and the fact that locations are so easily shared raises privacy concerns of stalking and sexual predators being able to find their target in person after discovering them online. The new Search function on Instagram combines the search of places, people, and tags to look at nearly any location on earth, allowing them to scout out a vacation spot, look inside a restaurant, and even to experience an event like they were there in person. The privacy implications of this fact is that people and companies can now see into every corner of the world, culture, and people's private lives. Additionally, this is concerning for individual privacy, because when someone searches through these features on Instagram for a specific location or place, Instagram shows them the personal photos that their users have posted, along with the likes and comments on that photo regardless of whether the poster's account is private or not. With these features, completely random people, businesses, and governments can see aspects of Instagram users' private lives. The Search and Explore pages that collect data based on user tagging illustrates how Instagram was able to create value out of the databases of information they collect on users throughout their business operations.
Swarm is a mobile app that lets users check-in to a location and potentially make plans and set up future meetings with people nearby. This app has made it easier for people in online communities to share their locations, as well as interact with others in this community through collecting rewards such as coins and stickers through competitions with other users. If a user is on Swarm, their exact location may be broadcast even if they didn't select their location to be "checked-in." When users turn on their "Neighborhood Sharing" feature, their location is shared as the specific intersection that they are at, and this location in current time can be viewed simply by tapping their profile image. This is concerning because Swarm users may believe they are being discreet by sharing only which neighborhood they are in, while in fact they are sharing the exact pinpoint of their location. The privacy implications of this is that people are inadvertently sharing their exact location when they do not know that they are. This plays into the privacy concerns of social media in general, because it makes it easier for other users as well as the companies this location data is shared with to track Swarm members. This tracking makes it easier for people to find their next targets for identity theft, stalking, and sexual harassment.
Spokeo is a "people-related" search engine with results compiled through data aggregation. The site contains information such as age, relationship status, estimated personal wealth, immediate family members and home address of individual people. This information is compiled through what is already on the internet or in other public records, but the website does not guarantee accuracy.
Spokeo has been faced with potential class action lawsuits from people who claim that the organization breaches the Fair Credit Reporting Act. In September, 2010, Jennifer Purcell claimed that the FCRA was violated by Spokeo marketing her personal information. Her case is pending in court. Also in 2010, Thomas Robins claimed that his personal information on the website was inaccurate and he was unable to edit it for accuracy. The case was dismissed because Robins did not claim that the site directly caused him actual harm. On February 15, 2011, Robins filed another suit, this time stating Spokeo has caused him "imminent and ongoing" harm.
In January 2011, the US government obtained a court order to force the social networking site, Twitter, to reveal information applicable surrounding certain subscribers involved in the WikiLeaks cases. This outcome of this case is questionable because it deals with the user's First Amendment rights. Twitter moved to reverse the court order, and supported the idea that internet users should be notified and given an opportunity to defend their constitutional rights in court before their rights are compromised.
Twitter allows people to share information with their followers. Any messages that are not switched from the default privacy setting are public, and thus can be viewed by anyone with a Twitter account. The most recent 20 tweets are posted on a public timeline. Despite Twitter's best efforts to protect their users privacy, personal information can still be dangerous to share. There have been incidents of leaked tweets on Twitter. Leaked tweets are tweets that have been published from a private account but have been made public. This occurs when friends of someone with a private account retweet, or copy and paste, that person's tweet and so on and so forth until the tweet is made public. This can make private information public, and could possibly be dangerous.
Another issue involving privacy on Twitter deals with users unknowingly disclosing their information through tweets. Twitter has location services attached to tweets, which some users don't even know are enabled. Many users tweet about being at home and attach their location to their tweet, revealing their personal home address. This information is represented as a latitude and longitude, which is completely open for any website or application to access. WeKnowYourHouse is an example of a website that has taken this information and posted it online for anyone to see. They provide Twitter user's names and personal addresses. The owner of the site stated that he created it as a warning to show how easy it is to find and reveal personal information without the right precautions. People also tweet about going on vacation and giving the times and places of where they are going and how long they will be gone for. This has led to numerous break ins and robberies. Twitter users can avoid location services by disabling them in their privacy settings.
Teachers and MySpace
Teachers' privacy on MySpace has created controversy across the world. They are forewarned by The Ohio News Association that if they have a MySpace account, it should be deleted. Eschool News warns, "Teachers, watch what you post online." The ONA also posted a memo advising teachers not to join these sites. Teachers can face consequences of license revocations, suspensions, and written reprimands.
The Chronicle of Higher Education wrote an article on April 27, 2007, entitled "A MySpace Photo Costs a Student a Teaching Certificate" about Stacy Snyder. She was a student of Millersville University of Pennsylvania who was denied her teaching degree because of an allegedly unprofessional photo posted on MySpace, which involved her drinking with a pirate's hat on and a caption of "Drunken Pirate". As a substitute, she was given an English degree.
Sites such as Sgrouples and Diaspora have attempted to introduce various forms of privacy protection into their networks, while companies like Safe Shepherd have created software to remove personal information from the net.
Certain social media sites such as Ask.fm, Whisper, and Yik Yak allow users to interact anonymously. The problem with websites such as these is that “despite safeguards that allow users to report abuse, people on the site believe they can say almost anything without fear or consequences—and they do." This is a privacy concern because users can say whatever they choose and the receiver of the message may never know who they are communicating with. Sites such as these allow for a large chance or cyberbullying or cyberstalking to occur. People seem to believe that since they can be anonymous, they have the freedom to say anything no matter how mean or malicious.
Internet privacy and Blizzard Entertainment
On July 6, 2010, Blizzard Entertainment announced that it would display the real names tied to user accounts in its game forums. On July 9, 2010, CEO and cofounder of Blizzard Mike Morhaime announced a reversal of the decision to force posters' real names to appear on Blizzard's forums. The reversal was made in response to subscriber feedback.
Snapchat is a mobile application created by Stanford graduates Evan Spiegel and Bobby Murphy in September 2011. Snapchat's main feature is that the application allows users to send a photo or video, referred to as a "snap", to recipients of choice for up to ten seconds before it disappears. If recipients of a snap try and screenshot the photo or video sent, a notification is sent to the original sender that it was screenshot and by whom. Snapchat also has a "stories" feature where users can send photos to their "story" and friends can view the story as many times as they want until it disappears after twenty-four hours. Users have the ability to make their snapchat stories viewable to all of their friends on their friends list, only specific friends, or the story can be made public and viewed by anyone that has a snapchat account. In addition to the stories feature, messages can be sent through Snapchat. Messages disappear after they are opened unless manually saved by the user by holding down on the message until a "saved" notification pops up. There is no notification sent to the users that their message has been saved by the recipient, however, there is a notification sent if the message is screenshot.
With the 2015 new update of Snapchat, users are able to do “Live Stories,” which are a “collection of crowdsourced snaps for a specific event or region.” By doing that, you are allowing snapchat to share your location with not just your friends, but with everyone. According to Snapchat, once you pick the option of sharing your content through a Live Story, you are providing to the company "unrestricted, worldwide, perpetual right and license to use your name, likeness, and voice in any and all media and distribution channels."
Privacy Concerns with Snapchat
On snapchat, there is a new feature that was incorporated into the app in 2017 called Snap Maps. Snap Maps allows users to track other users’ locations, but when people “first use the feature, users can select whether they want to make their location visible to all of their friends, a select group of connections or to no one at all, which Snapchat refers to as ‘ghost mode.’”
This feature however has raised privacy concerns because “‘It is very easy to accidentally share everything that you've got with more people than you need too, and that's the scariest portion,’ cyber security expert Charles Tendell told ABC News of the Snapchat update.” For protecting younger users of Snapchat, “Experts recommend that parents stay aware of updates to apps like Snapchat. They also suggest parents make sure they know who their kids' friends are on Snapchat and also talk to their children about who they add on Snapchat.”
In 2016, Snapchat released a new product called “Snapchat Spectacles,” which are sunglasses featuring a small camera that allow users to take photos and record up to 10 seconds of footage. The cameras in the Spectacles are connected to users’ existing Snapchat accounts, so they can easily upload their content to the application. This new product has received negative feedback because the Spectacles do not stand out from normal sunglasses beyond the small cameras on the lenses. Therefore, users have the ability to record strangers without them knowing. and could potentially otherwise unwilling of the glasses may not even realize they are any different than a basic pair of shades. Critics of Snapchat Spectacles argue that this product is an invasion of privacy for the people who do not know they are being recorded by individuals who are wearing the glasses. Proponents disagree, saying that the glasses are distinguishable enough that users and people around them will notice them. Another argument in favor of the glasses is that people are already exposing themselves to similar scenarios by being in public.
2016 Amnesty International Report
Response to criticism
Many social networking organizations have responded to the criticism and concerns over privacy brought up over time. It is claimed that changes to default settings, the storage of data and sharing with third parties have all been updated and corrected in the light of criticism, and/or legal challenges. However, many critics remain unsatisfied, noting that fundamental changes to privacy settings in many social networking sites remain minor and at times, inaccessible, and argue that social networking companies prefer to criticize users rather than adapt their policies.
- Anonymous social media
- Criticism of Facebook
- Index of Articles Relating to Terms of Service and Privacy Policies
- Information privacy
- Social media
- Social networking service
- Surveillance capitalism
- Unauthorized access in online social networks
- Harris, Wil. June 2006. Retrieved from "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2012-09-23. Retrieved 2012-09-15.
- Dwyer, C., Hiltz, S. & Passerini, K. (2007). Trust and Privacy Concern within Social Networking Sites: A Comparison of Facebook and MySpace. Americas Conference on Information Systems. Retrieved from http://google.com/scholar?q=cache:qLCk18d_wZwJ:scholar.google.com/+facebook+privacy&hl=en&as_sdt=2000
- Tracy Mitrano. (2006, November, December). A Wider World: Youth, Privacy, and Social Networking Technologies. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Review/EDUCAUSEReviewMagazineVolume41/AWiderWorldYouthPrivacyandSoci/158095
- "History of Online Social Networks". Ebsco Host. Ebsco Host Connection.
- Quinn, Kelly. ""Why We Share: A Uses and Gratifications Approach to Privacy Regulation in Social Media Use"". EBSCOhost. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media. Retrieved 5 April 2018.
- Mills, Max. "Sharing Privately: The Effect Publication on Social Media Has on Expectation of Privacy". EBSCOhost. Journal of Media Law. Retrieved 4 April 2018.
- Boyd, Danah (2014). It's Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens. Yale University Press. pp. 56, 60.
- Gross, R. and Acquisti, A. 2005. Information Revelation and Privacy in Online Social Networking Sites (The Facebook Case).[online]. p. 2. Available at: http://www.heinz.cmu.edu/~acquisti/papers/privacy-facebook-gross-acquisti.pdf [Accessed 24 April 2011].
- "We Can't Give Up on Privacy!".
- Kelly, S. Identity 'at risk' on Facebook. BBC News. [online]. Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/click_online/7375772.stm [Accessed 25 April 2011].
- Chamorro-Premuzic, Tomas (May 1, 2017). "Why Were So Hypocritical About Online Priivacy". HBR. Retrieved 2017-05-15.
- Dienlin, Tobias; Trepte, Sabine (2015-04-01). "Is the privacy paradox a relic of the past? An in-depth analysis of privacy attitudes and privacy behaviors". European Journal of Social Psychology. 45 (3): 285–297. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2049. ISSN 1099-0992.
- Van der Velden, El Emam, Maja, Khaled (January 1, 2013). ""Not all my friends need to know": a qualitative study of teenage patients, privacy, and social media". Academic.oup. Archived from the original on 2018-03-30.
- Dwyer, C., Hiltz, S., & Passerini, K. "Trust and Privacy Concern Within Social Networking Sites: A Comparison of Facebook and MySpace". Association for Information Systems AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). AMCIS 2007 Proceedings. Retrieved 2007. Check date values in:
- Luo, W., Xie, Q., & Hengartner, U. "FaceCloak: An Architecture for User Privacy on Social Networking Sites". IEEE Xplore. IEEE. Retrieved 2009. Check date values in:
- Matthew., Myron, (2009). What is privacy? : investigating the meaning of privacy in Facebook and the social consequences of this. Saarbrücken, Germany: Verlag Dr. Müller. ISBN 3639175905. OCLC 469775250.
- Majid, Abdul (4 April 2013). "A Context-Aware Personalized Travel Recommendation System Based on Grotagged Social Media Data Mining". International Journal of Geographical Information Science. 27 (4): 662–684. doi:10.1080/13658816.2012.696649.
- "How to Stop Facebook from Sharing Your Information With Third Parties".
- "Facebook Secretly Sold Your Identity to Advertisers".
- Peddy, Andrea (January 2017). [Peddy, Alexis M. "Dangerous Classroom "App" -Titude: Protecting Student Privacy from Third-Party Educational Service Providers." Brigham Young University Education & Law Journal, vol. 2017, no. 1, Jan. 2017, pp. 125-159. EBSCOhost, 220.127.116.11:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=122342754&site=ehost-live&scope=site. "Dangerous Classroom App -Titude: Protecting Student Privacy from Third-Party Educational Service Providers"] Check
|url=value (help). Brigham Young University Education & Law Journal. 1: 125–159. Retrieved April 10, 2018.
- Meredith, Sam. "Here's everything you need to know about the Cambridge Analytica scandal". CNBC.
- "What APIs Are And Why They're Important". readwrite.
- Bechmann, Anja (Summer 2012). "Using APIs for Data Collection". Taylor & Francis Online. 30: 256–265. doi:10.1080/01972243.2014.915276 – via TandFOnline.
- Chang, Alvin. "The Facebook and Cambridge Analytica scandal, explained with a simple diagram".
- "5 alternative search engines that respect your privacy".
- Furini, Marco. "Location privacy and public metadata in social media platforms: attitudes, behaviors and opinions". Multimedia Tools and Applications.
- "About Twitter's suggestions for who to follow".
- Pennacchiotti, Marco; Popescu, Ana-Maria (2011-08-21). "Democrats, republicans and Starbucks aficionados: user classification in twitter". KDD '11 Proceedings of the 17th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining: 430–438. doi:10.1145/2020408.2020477. ISBN 9781450308137.
- gladdis, keith (28 February 2012). "Twitter secrets for sale: Privacy row as every tweet for last two years is bought up by data firm". London: daily mail. Retrieved 30 March 2012.
- "tracking our online trackers".
- Yao, M.Z., &Zhang, J. (2008). Predicting user concerns about online privacy in Hong Kong. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 11(6). 779–781. Dio:10.1089/cpb.2007.0252
- "Overview of the Privacy Act of 1974". justice.gov.
- Danesh Irani, Steve Webb, Calton Pu, Kang Li, "Modeling Unintended Personal-Information Leakage from Multiple Online Social Networks," IEEE Internet Computing, May/June 2011. Retrieved from http://www.computer.org/csdl/mags/ic/2011/03/mic2011030013-abs.html
- Balachander Krishnamurthy, Konstantin Naryshkin, Craig Wills, "Privacy leakage vs. Protection measures: the growing disconnect," Web 2.0 Security and Privacy Workshop, May 2011. Retrieved from http://www.research.att.com/~bala/papers/w2sp11.pdf
- Balachander Krishnamurthy and Craig Wills, "On the Leakage of Personally Identifiable Information Via Online Social Networks," Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM Workshop on Online Social Networks, August 2009. Retrieved from http://www.research.att.com/~bala/papers/wosn09.pdf
- van Leeuwen, M (2015). "Social Media Ethics". The International Encyclopedia of Digital Communication and Society – via ONESEARCH.
- Ciment, J (2013). "Social Media". Culture Wars in America: An Encyclopedia of Issues, Viewpoints, and Voices – via ONESEARCH.
- "Twitter admits peeking at address books, announces privacy improvements. Twitter spokeswoman Carolyn Penner said they will use "Upload your contacts" and "import your contacts" for iPhone and Android apps respectively to replace "Scan your contacts" to make it more explicit". sky news. 16 February 2012. Retrieved 30 March 2012.
- Cross, Brandy. "Instagram Claims Rights to User Photos, Including Advertising". The High Tech Society.
- Fernandez, P. 2009. Online Social Networking Sites and Privacy: Revisiting Ethical Considerations for a New Generation of Technology. [online]. Available at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1250&context=libphilprac [Accessed 25 April 2011]
- McMenemy, D. 2008. Internet access in UK public libraries: notes and queries from a small scale study [abstract only]. Library Review [online]. Available at: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?issn=0024-2535&volume=57&issue=7&articleid=1740622&show=html [Accessed 25 April 2011]
- Smith, C. 2011. Facebook Removes 20, 000 Underage Users Every Day. The Huffington Post. [online]. Available at:  [Accessed 25 April 2011]
- Gross, R. and Acquisti, A. 2005. Information Revelation and Privacy in Online Social Networking Sites (The Facebook Case).[online]. p. 8. Available at: http://www.heinz.cmu.edu/~acquisti/papers/privacy-facebook-gross-acquisti.pdf [Accessed 24 April 2011].
- "Social Networking Privacy: How to be Safe, Secure and Social - Privacy Rights Clearinghouse". privacyrights.org.
- myID.com. 2011. Social Network Profiles Help Identity Thieves Guess Your Social Security Number. [online]. Available at: http://www.myid.com/social-network-profiles-help-thieves-guess-your-social-security-number. [Accessed 25 April 2011]
- MSNBC. 2011. Kids' pictures on Facebook exposes them to identity theft. [online]. Available at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42593880/ns/local_news-bakersfield_ca/ [Accessed 25 April 2011]
- myers, alexandra. "After a Twitter hack, 'biebermyballs' becomes a popular hashtag". daily caller. Retrieved 30 March 2012.
- "Bogomil Shopov, Bulgarian Tech Consultant: 1 Million Users' Private Facebook Data Available Online For $5 (VIDEO)". The Huffington Post.
- Chai S, Bagchi-Sen S, Morrell C, Rao H, Upadhyaya S. Internet and online information privacy: An exploratory study of preteens and early teens. IEEE Transactions On Professional Communication [serial online]. June 2009;52(2):167–182. Available from: PsycINFO, Ipswich, MA. Accessed February 6, 2012.
- Feng Y., Xie, W. Teens' concern for privacy when using social networking sites: An analysis of socialization agents and relationships with privacy setting options on Facebook" Computers in Human Behavior 2014, 33 (April), 153-162.
- Moscardelli D, Divine R. Adolescents' Concern for Privacy When Using the Internet: An Empirical Analysis of Predictors and Relationships with Privacy-Protecting Behaviors. Family And Consumer Sciences Research Journal [serial online]. March 2007;35(3):232–252. Available from: PsycINFO, Ipswich, MA. Accessed February 6, 2012.
- Murphy, Kate. "We Want Privacy, but Can't Stop Sharing." Sunday Review. The New York Times Company, 4 October 2014. Web.
- Madden, Mary, Amanda Lenhart, Sandra Cortesi, Urs Gasser, Maeve Duggan, Aaron Smith, and Meredith Beaton. "Teens, Social Media, and Privacy." Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech. N.p., 21 May 2013. Web. 23 February 2017.
- Wexler, Evan, and Cecily Taylor. "What Are Teens Doing Online?" PBS. Public Broadcasting Service, 18 February 2014. Web. 1 March 2017.
- "California allows minors to delete social media posts, with 'erase' law". Fox News. 2014-03-01. Retrieved 2017-11-10.
- "Right to be forgotten". Wikipedia. 2017-11-01.
- https://techcrunch.com/2009/02/03/thousands-of-myspace-sex-offender-refugees-found-on-facebook/ [Accessed: 24 April 2011]
- "Internet Safety 101: Dangers".
- Facebook Help Center. 2011. How can I report a convicted sex offender? [online]. Available at: http://www.facebook.com/help/?faq=15160 [Accessed 24 April 2011]
- Randall, D. and Richards, V. Facebook can ruin your life. And so can Myspace, Bebo…. The Independent [online]. Available at: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/facebook-can-ruin-your-life-and-so-can-myspace-bebo-780521.html. [Accessed 24 April 2011]
- "Dangers Of Social Networking Are On The Increase And Everyone Is At Risk!".
- Smith, C. 2010. Serial Sex Offender Admits Using Facebook To Rape and Murder Teen. The Huffington Post. [online]. Available at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/08/peter-chapman-admits-usin_n_489674.html [Accessed 24 April 2011]
- "Social Media and Cyber Stalking Facts - Advice and Tips on Staying Protected". seomworld.com.
- Malone, S. 2005. CLARIFICATION: AOL Instant messenger users 'waive right to privacy'. [online]. Available at: http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/70262/clarification-aol-instant-messenger-users-waive-right-to-privacy [Accessed 24 April 2011]
- Retrieved from: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/smartphone-apps-tracking-keeping-tabs-past-lovers-people/story?id=13022144
- EPIC – In re Facebook. (n.d.). EPIC – Electronic Privacy Information Center. Retrieved January 25, 2011/
- "First Amendment to the United States Constitution". Wikipedia. 2017-10-16.
- Bennet, J. n.d. Internet Memes. [online]. Available at: "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2011-07-20. Retrieved 2011-04-26. [Accessed 25 April 2011]
- Havenstein, H. 2008. One in five employers uses social networks in the hiring process. [online]. Available at: http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9114560/One_in_five_employers_uses_social_networks_in_hiring_process [Accessed 24 April 2011]
- Bowers, T. 2008. Employers who check out job candidates on MySpace could be legally liable. [online]. Available at: http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/career/employers-who-check-out-job-candidates-on-myspace-could-be-legally-liable/338 [Accessed 24 April 2011]
- "Illinois Becomes Second State to Prohibit Employers from Requiring Access to Employees' and Prospective Employees' Social Media Web Sites". The National Law Review. 2012-08-23. Retrieved 2012-08-23.
- "State Laws Ban Access to Workers' Social Media Accounts". SHRM. 2015-07-29. Retrieved 2017-11-10.
- "Privacy and Social Media | Business Law Section". www.americanbar.org. Retrieved 2017-11-10.
- Sky News. 2009. Sacked for Calling Job Boring on Facebook. [online]. Available at: http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Facebook-Sacking-Kimberley-Swann-From-Clacton-Essex-Sacked-For-Calling-Job-Boring/Article/200902415230508 [Accessed 24 April 2011]
- BBC News. 2008. Crew sacked over Facebook posts. Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7703129.stm [Accessed 24 April 2011]
- Roythornes Solicitors. 2011. The employment law dangers of Social Networking. [online]. Available at: http://www.opportunitypeterborough.co.uk/bondholder/events/the-employment-law-dangers-of-social-networking [Accessed 24 April 2011]
- Henson, Bill; Reynes W. Reyns; Bonnie S. Fisher (3 March 2011). "Security in the 21st century: examining the link between online social network activity, privacy, and interpersonal victimization". Criminal Justice Review. 36 (253): 253–268. doi:10.1177/0734016811399421.
- Lori Andrews (10 January 2012). I Know Who You Are and I Saw What You Did: Social Networks and the Death of Privacy. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 978-1-4516-5051-8.
- Sharon Jayson, USA TODAY (8 March 2014). "Social media research raises privacy and ethics issues". USA TODAY.
- Richard Lardner. (2010, March 16). Your new Facebook 'friend' may be the FBI. Retrieved from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35890739/ns/technology_and_science-security/
- Harkins, Gina. (2011, March 02). Cops patrol social networking sites for gang activity. Retrieved from http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=181375
- Taghi, Hasti. (2011, February 10). Police Use Facebook To Track Suspect. Retrieved from "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2011-08-15. Retrieved 2012-09-15.
- Halverstadt, Lisa. (2009, March 12). Surprise police use MySpace to locate teen graffiti suspect. Retrieved from http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/03/12/20090312gl-nwvmyspace0313.html
- Nixon, Ron (2017-09-28). "U.S. to Collect Social Media Data on All Immigrants Entering Country". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2017-11-10.
- "Federal Plan To Keep Files Of Immigrant Social Media Activity Causes Alarm". NPR.org. Retrieved 2017-11-10.
- "Why Government Use of Social Media Monitoring Software Is a Direct Threat to Our Liberty and Privacy".
- Pearlman, Jonathan. "Lord Justice Leveson calls for new laws to curb 'mob rule' on the internet". telegraph.co.uk. Daily Telegraph.
- Paulien Coppens; Laurence Claeys; Carina Veeckman & Jo Pierson (2014). "Privacy in location-based social networks: Researching the interrelatedness of scripts and usage" (PDF). Journal of Location Based Services. 9 (1): 1–15. doi:10.1080/17489725.2015.1017015.
- Zhan, Justin; Fang, Xing (2011). "Location Privacy Protection on Social Networks". Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 6589: 78–85. Bibcode:2011LNCS.6589...78Z. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-19656-0_12. ISBN 978-3-642-19655-3.
- Weeks, Julie. "Invasive Privacy Agreements". Google Sites. Retrieved May 16, 2016.
- Ellison, Nicole B.; Steinfield, Charles; Lampe, Cliff (2007-07-01). "The Benefits of Facebook "Friends:" Social Capital and College Students' Use of Online Social Network Sites". Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 12 (4): 1143–1168. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x. ISSN 1083-6101.
- Tantawy, Rasha Y.; Farouk, Ziad; Mohamed, Shereen; Yousef, Ahmed H. (2014-10-06). "Using Professional Social Networking as an Innovative Method for Data Extraction: The ICT Alumni Index Case Study". arXiv: [cs.CY].
- "Social Networking Privacy".
- Bangeman, E. 2010. Report: Facebook caught sharing secret data with advisers. [online]. Available at: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/05/latest-facebook-blunder-secret-data-sharing-with-advertisers.ars [Accessed 25 April 2011]
- "Social Networking Privacy: How to be Safe, Secure and Social - Privacy Rights Clearinghouse". www.privacyrights.org.
- "Protecting Your Privacy on Social Media Network".
- Bubaš, Goran; Orehovacki, Tihomir; Konecki, Mario (April 2008). "Factors and Predictors of Online Security and Privacy Behavior". Journal of Information and Organizational Sciences. 32(2): 79–98.
- "5 ways social media users can protect online privacy".
- "How to Protect Your Online Privacy".
- ["Young People Most at Risk of Sharing Personal Information Online." Education Journal, no. 306, 06 June 2017, p. 18. EBSCOhost, 18.104.22.168:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=123462706&site=ehost-live&scope=site. "Young People Most at Risk of Sharing Personal Information Online"] Check
|url=value (help). Education Journal. 306: 18. 6 June 2017. Retrieved 9 April 2018.
- "Protect Your Privacy on Social Networks".
- "Social Networks".
- Gaggioli, Adrea (2 Feb 2016). "Cybersightings". Cyberpsychology, Behavior & Social Networking. 19 (2): 154. doi:10.1089/cyber.2015.29023.csi.
- "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2012-12-12. Retrieved 2012-10-31.
- Electronic Privacy Information Center, Initials. (2011, January 18). Facebook drops plan to disclose users' home addresses and personal phone number. Retrieved from http://epic.org/privacy/socialnet/
- Retrieved from http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/02/24/facebook-quashes-hot-new-stalker-app/
- Herrman, John (2012-01-01). "Removing Yourself From the Internet". Popular Mechanics. 189 (1): 77.
- "Study Says Facebook Privacy Concerns Are on the Rise - Is It Accurate?". Mashable. 4 May 2012.
- Lipford, H. R., Besmer, A. & Watson, J. (2009). Understanding Privacy Settings in Facebook with an Audience View. Department of Software and Information Systems University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Retrieved from http://www.usenix.org/events/upsec08/tech/full_papers/lipford/lipford_html/
- Bianca Bosker, Virtual Guide To Facebook's Privacy Changes Over Time, 2010. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/07/facebook-privacy-changes_n_568345.html
- Luckerson, 7 Controversial Ways Facebook Has Used Your Data, 2014. Retrieved from http://time.com/4695/7-controversial-ways-facebook-has-used-your-data/
- American Civil Liberties Union. (2010, December 16). Commerce department releases important report urging comprehensive privacy protections. Retrieved from https://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/commerce-department-releases-important-report-urging-comprehensive-privacy-pr
- Mcmillan, Robert (22 April 2010). "1.5 Million Stolen Facebook IDs up for Sale". PC World Business Center.
- Damon, Cody (9 March 2011). "Do Facebook Friends Influence Advertising?". Socialmediatoday.
- "Profiting with Facebook Ads." affiliate confession. Alan, 13 August 2008.
- Guynn, Jessica (May 1, 2017). "Facebook Can Tell When Teens Feel Insecure". USA Today. Retrieved 2018-05-15.
- Martinez, A. (November 2017). "Facebook Isn't Listening Through Your Phone. It Doesn't Have to". Wired.
- Erik Hayden. (2010, March 11). On Facebook, You Are Who You Know. Retrieved from http://www.miller-mccune.com/culture-society/on-facebook-you-are-who-you-know-10385/# Archived 2012-03-25 at the Wayback Machine.
- Editorial Expression of Concern and Correction
- Goel, Vindu (2014-06-29). "Facebook Tinkers With Users' Emotions in News Feed Experiment, Stirring Outcry". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2017-04-18.
- Debatin, B.; Horn, A.; Hughes, B.; Lovejoy, J. (2009). "Facebook and Online Privacy: Attitudes, Behaviors, and Unintended Consequences". Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 15: 83–108. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01494.x.
- Newell, B (2011). "Rethinking Reasonable Expectations of Privacy in Online Social Networks". Richmond Journal of Law and Technology. 16: 1–61.
- Thompson, C. (2015, May 28). Social media apps are tracking your location in shocking detail. Retrieved February 21, 2017, from http://www.businessinsider.com/three-ways-social-media-is-tracking-you-2015-5
- Neal, T. (2015, July 27). Mining Big Data, the Instagram Way. Retrieved February 22, 2017, from https://www.thefastmode.com/content-sharing-apps/5450-mining-big-data-the-instagram-way
- "What Is Foursquare Swarm?" Help Center. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 February 2017. From https://support.foursquare.com/hc/en-us/articles/201908440-What-is-Foursquare-Swarm-
- Baynes, T. (2011, February 24). Lawsuits challenge U.S. online data brokers. Reuters. Retrieved from http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/02/24/idUKN2427826420110224?pageNumber=1
- Davis, W. (2011, February 17). Spokeo charged with violating fair credit reporting act. MediaPost Publications. Retrieved from http://www.mediapost.com/publications/? fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=145270
- (1/8/11) Government Requests For Twitter Users' Personal Information Raises Serious Constitutional Concerns. Retrieved from https://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/government-requests-twitter-users-personal-information-raise-serious-constitu
- Mao, H., Shuai, X., & Kapadia, Apu. (2011). Loose Tweets: An Analysis of Privacy Leaks on Twitter. Unpublished manuscript, School of Informatics and Computing, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana. Retrieved from http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/2050000/2046558/p1-mao.pdf
- Meeder, B., Tam, J., Kelley, P., G., & Cranor, L., F. (2010). RT@ I Want Privacy: Widespread Violation of Privacy Settings in the Twitter Social Network. Unpublished manuscript, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.. Retrieved from "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2012-04-03. Retrieved 2012-09-15.
- Mark Prigg. (2012). Privacy alert over 'scary' site which publishes home addresses of Twitter users from around the world. Retrieved from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2192554/Privacy-concerns-scary-site-publishes-twitter-users-home-addresses.html
- Mao, H., Shuai, X., & Kapadia, Apu. (2011). Loose Tweets: An Analysis of Privacy Leaks on Twitter. Unpublished manuscript, School of Informatics and Computing, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana. Retrieved from http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/2050000/2046558/p1-mao.pdf?ip=22.214.171.124&acc=ACTIVE%20SERVICE&CFID=83500791&CFTOKEN=13963530&__acm__=1328588779_85d65fafbc540969d885ea6c8fe0467f
- "Learning Curve". Blogs.sun.com. Archived from the original on April 30, 2011. Retrieved 2011-11-25.
- Related Top News – Teachers warned about MySpace profiles Archived December 24, 2007, at the Wayback Machine.
- Read, Brock (2007-04-27). "Wired Campus: A MySpace Photo Costs a Student a Teaching Certificate –". Chronicle.com. Retrieved 2011-11-25.
- Matt Miller (8 November 2012). "Privacy Isn't Dead With Millennials, It's Thriving". Forbes.
- Dickey, Jack. ""The Antisocial Network"". EBSCOhost. Time. Retrieved 4 April 2018.
- World of Warcraft forum post, Blizzard announces reversal of its decision to force real names to appear on its forums
- Young, Danielle. "Now You See it Now You Don't...or Do You? Snapchat's Deceptive Promotion of Vanishing Messages Violates Federal Trade Commission Regulations." The John Marshall Journal of Information Technology and Privacy Law. 30.4 (2014): 1-25. Web. http://repository.jmls.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1751&context=jitpl
- Buchanan, Matt. "The Long Snap - The New Yorker." The New Yorker. 14 October 2013. Web. 28 February 2016. http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/the-long-snap
- Hasty, Jen. "Snapchat 101: What It Is and How to Use It." Mobile Living by Verizon Wireless. 2015. Web. 29 February 2016. http://www.verizonwireless.com/mobile-living/tech-smarts/what-is-snapchat-how-to-use-new-features/
- "Snapchat's new map feature raises fears of stalking and bullying".
- "Snapchat's new Snap Map feature raises privacy concerns".
- Lekach, Sasha (November 16, 2016). "Privacy Panic? Snapchat Spectacles raise eyebrows". Mashable. Retrieved May 24, 2017.
- Elsayed-Ali, Sherif (October 21, 2016). "SNAPCHAT, SKYPE AMONG APPS NOT PROTECTING USERS' PRIVACY". Amnesty International. Retrieved May 24, 2017.
- Elder, Robert (April 28, 2017). s-why-brands-should-care-2017-4 "Snapchat tops Facebook and Twitter for online privacy" Check
|url=value (help). Business Insider. Retrieved May 24, 2017.[dead link]
- "Snapchat Settles FTC Charges That Promises of Disappearing Messages Were False." FTC May 8, 2014. Retrieved February 29, 2016. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2014/05/snapchat-settles-ftc-charges-promises-disappearing-messages-were
- Young, Danielle. "Now You See it Now You Don't...or Do You? Snapchat's Deceptive Promotion of Vanishing Messages Violates Federal Trade Commission Regulations." The John Marshall Journal of Information Technology and Privacy Law. 30.4 (2014): 1-25. Web. http://repository.jmls.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1751&context=jitpl
- Burnham, Kristin. "5 Ways Snapchat Violated Your Privacy, Security - InformationWeek." InformationWeek. 5 September 2014. Web. 29 February 2016. <http://www.informationweek.com/software/social/5-ways-snapchat-violated-your-privacy-security/d/d-id/1251175>.
- Osborne, Charlie. "FTC Finalizes Charges against Snapchat over User Privacy | ZDNet." ZDNet. 2 January 2015. Web. 29 February 2016. <http://www.zdnet.com/article/ftc-finalizes-charges-against-snapchat-over-user-privacy/>.
- Paul, Ian. "Snapchat Clarifies Privacy Policies after Terms of Service Change Freaks out Users." PCWorld. 2 November 2015. Web. 28 February 2016.
- Shepherd and Wedderburn. 2010. Facebook amend privacy settings following an unpleasant poke from EU privacy protectors. [online]. Available at: http://www.shepwedd.co.uk/knowledge/article/1095-2831/facebook-amend-privacy-settings-following-an-unpleasant-poke-from-eu-privacy-protectors/archive/?page=1 [Accessed 25 April 2011]
- Saint, N. 2010. Facebook's Response to Privacy Concerns: "If you're not Comfortable Sharing, Don't". [online]. Available at: http://www.businessinsider.com/facebooks-response-to-privacy-concerns-if-youre-not-comfortable-sharing-dont-2010-5 [Accessed 25 April 2011]