Zuckerberg: I know that people don't want privacy
I am sure that Facebook will endure until well beyond our being twinned with the Planet Tush.
Facebook employees will, as the years go by, leave the company to enter politics more frequently. They will be elected with landslide majorities and they will be extremely popular as they will anticipate people's needs far quicker than the conventional gray-haired folks who buy ill-fitting clothes at expensive retailers and currently sit in the Senate.
How can I be so sure? Well, I just watched this video of Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg being interviewed by a very nice man in a suit.
And in it, around the three-minute mark, he says: "People have really gotten comfortable not only sharing more information and different kinds, but more openly and with more people. That social norm is just something that has evolved over time."
Perhaps you weren't aware that people's comfort with sharing had become a new social norm. Perhaps you were naive enough to think that people used laptops and social-networking sites to connect very specifically with certain other people in order to share certain things. You know, in a relatively private way. Like letters that fly at the speed of light. You were mistaken.
Hark the Facebook herald: "We view it as our role in the system to constantly be innovating and be updating what our system is to reflect what the current social norms are," he said.
You were, you see, mistaken to a stunning degree. In order to understand what really makes society go from a tick to a tock, you should use Facebook's policy changes as a guide. If Facebook decrees that your information ought to be frightfully public, then that merely reflects your lassitude in realizing that pretty much everyone out there wants their information to be public. Please keep up with the social norms. Society demands it.
Talking of social norms, perhaps I gave the impression that it was you, the users, who expressed to Facebook what these social norms actually are. Well, not exactly. You see Facebook simply decides what the social norms are and goes for it. How dare I say this, publicly no less, with such confidence?
Merely because Zuckerberg said it first. He declared that it was important for his company to "always keep a beginner's mind and what would we do if we were starting the company now and we decided that these would be the social norms now and we just went for it."
Gosh, it's hard to keep up with these pesky social norms. They change so very, very quickly. Two years ago, Zuckerberg told ReadWriteWeb that privacy controls were "the vector around which Facebook operates."
I know you'll be wanting evidence for this massive recent social shift that has happened before your very lazy eyes, beneath your nose, and inside your online entrails. Zuckerberg pointed to the "rise of blogging" and "all these different services that have people sharing all this information."
You, too, can tomorrow blog or create a service and look forward to changing a social norm. Aim high. You might be able to change the social norm for, say, war or typing while walking.
But in order to change a social norm from, say, a tendency to cherish privacy to an embrace of indiscriminately public displays of information, what you'll need is 350 million users, a nice large number that might be very attractive to advertisers, as long as those advertisers can discover as much about your members as immediately as possible.
Then tell your members that you are changing the privacy rules not because you can see a golden brick road ahead of you, laden with untold lashings of lucre, but because this is quite clearly what they want. They just don't know it yet. But you do, because you have the unique ability to see to the other side of rainbows. And demand curves.
The mark of a great company lies in anticipating the needs of its customers. Facebook has clearly shown its talent in doing just that. Now, if only it could make a little more money from that talent, we'd all be happy. Wouldn't we?
For instance, how many folks on Facebook who were arrested and/or fined for DUI would openly say so? How many of them do you figure would publicly admit to having had syphilis, gonorrhea, or HIV? How many of them would relate their true deepest sexual fantasies and preferences? How many post their Social Security (US) number? How many would openly allow Facebook to place an agent on their web browser and post all the sites they have visited in the past week, month, year? How many would publicly post that they've declared Bankruptcy in the past five years?
The answer to all of those is probably "none, if any, and those that do exist are likely fake or forgeries".
In the middle, we have stuff that we don't mind folks knowing. This time, I can only present myself as an example: I don't mind people knowing that I work in IT. I enjoy 'talking shop' with near-perfect strangers in the same field. I don't mind giving a rough estimate of my salary (so close to six figures that I can almost taste it). I have no problem with sharing funny (even self-deprecating) stories about myself with friends.
Then of course there's the usual business/government stuff: I have to tell Pizza Hut my home address and phone number so they can get my purchase to me and/or call me back if there's a problem - and my CC# in order to pay for the thing (unless I use cash). I have to tell the local DOT/DMV my birthdate, Social Security number, insurance carrier name, etc. if I want to renew my car's tags or renew the driver's license.
Then there's the stuff that people don;t care who would know/find out - usually their first names, what town they live in, etc.
Long story short - privacy is not black/white. It's a ginormous spectrum of gray, with a sliver of white or black on either end.
For those few who openly tell world+dog everything they ever could about themselves, hey, go for it, but that doesn't give Facebook (or anyone else) carte blache to assume the rest of the planet feels the same way. For those who are reluctant to even give their name, cool - but this doesn't mean that Facebook is suddenly bound by a strict code of Omerta, either.
The trick lies in striking a balance. To be honest, that balance should err towards confidentiality, even if the user is posting their life story on the pages. Spewing out the generality that people (as a whole) somehow don't want privacy, in spite of most folks using the controls on Facebook to prevent world+dog from seeing every aspect of their content? That's a good way to eventually kill your business, and I suspect that if Zukerberg's alleged notion were broadcast across CNN, Fox, NBC, etc... Facebook would start dying faster than even MySpace is right now.
So, err,
The essence of privacy is that it is up to each individual to decide how much information to reveal, to whom, and under what circumstances.
When anyone violates that trust, it is a violation of a key social contract. This ranges from a friend revealing private information, through the "loyalty program" offers, all the way up to credit card data theft and identity theft.
Hopefully businesses that violate that trust lose their users. That is really the only practical way to enforce the value of that social contract. Let me decide how much of my information to reveal, when I reveal it, and to whom I reveal it.
Another key part of this is trust---that, if I reveal information to someone, that individual or business only reveals that information to others in ways I clearly agreed to upfront.
Granted, nothing is ever 100% perfect; there are always people and businesses who cannot be trusted with certain types of information. But, doing our level best to ensure degree of privacy remains the choice of the individual, is the only way to ensure any degree of privacy.
When I posted your real name, home address, employer, and telephone number- all of which was publically avaialble online through the clubs and other user accounts you had through your college, employer, profiles at Slashdot and other, you complained to CNET and had it removed as it was personal and private.
You are proposing that we need a balance of privacy and public information, and yet when your personal information which was available in different public areas was consolidated to one spot that you didn't like, that wanted it taken down.
Why is it you have a double standard in this situation when it applies to your own data? Or... is that too personal and private a question to ask? Your answer will tell us a lot more about your stand on this issue than your original comment.
Fortunately, karma works whether or not you believe in it.
@ RW -- I wasn't able to read the article (I guess ReadWriteWeb's server's getting slammed right now) -- but aside from agreeing with you on privacy being a shades-of-grey thing, I can't believe you didn't criticize Zuckerberg for this comment.
My reason for saying that -- you have to look at how interests align. Google, Bing, Facebook, MySpace, etc. (long list) - their business models depend on them knowing as much about you as possible. Sometimes the services they offer will depend on them knowing as much about you as possible. Services, to third-parties -- not necessarily services to you. Third parties being people like insurance companies (life style information, location, speed, etc.), advertisers (just about any information they can get), etc. -- I could name a very long list here.
i.e. These companies (and please note, I include MS in this) -- they might masquerade as trying to live up to the current social norms, enabling all kinds of cool scenarios, etc. etc. -- but in the end they have a very real, very tangible, direct *financial* interest in knowing as much as possible about you, and in selling that data to the highest bidder. They have no direct *financial* interest in protecting your privacy.
The only conclusion you can reach from that -- it's up to *us* to be the watchdogs. So when Eric Schmidt, Zuckerberg, and the other dude from Google who circulated that memo (can't remember details) talk about privacy in such a cavalier way, we should not respond with anything less than outrage.
You have your opinion and I have mine. Perhaps you have forgotten Penguinisto's history and reputation. He tried to run away from that by a new account but didn't run far enough as his history came back to haunt him. You're right, karma does come around to haunt those who deserve it.
@dhavleak:
Yep, and Penguinisto complained to have the comment removed citing a breach of privacy. That's why I find his comments here to be so dishonest. Meh.
Then throw that information in his face on a private comversation and and note his responses. So long as you don't make the information from the investigation public, you are not breaking any rules - But that would give Cnet and you the ability to spread his kind of mentality about his FB users as he is stating in this interview.
Some one mentioned Carma - That is exactly what it would be right ? After all he says he knows better then the FB users what they want in terms of user privacy AND HE DOES NOT CARE ABOUT HIS BECAUSE HE IS OK WITH ALL HIS INFORMATION BEING OUT THERE.
When in fact, he is taking advantage of many FB users who DON'T understand how they are being abused.
We have to keep in mind that for the most people including yourger kids and yournger adults, as well as many adults, are just looking for a trusting site, looking for friends, looking to stay connected with their school mates, meeting other with the same interest and while this may be called by many being NAIVE, it does not give FB the right to take advantage of FB users just because they don't know any better - ON WHAT FACEBOOK IS DOING BEHIND THEIR BACKS WITH THEIR INFORMATION.
Am sure Chris that if you were to send this Story to all the News Station, more an more people would undertand what FB Zukerberg thinks of their FB users private information.
Forget the private investigator, send this to news station - exposed him, and his so call - know better then FB users position, lets see what happens.
I beg you Chris to send it out, television stations will bring this issue to the forefront to billions of people.
This is one Screw up college kid who grew up with so much money that he THINKS HE IS SPECIAL. Let the people of America and the Wold decide.
@ GEO - now there's an idea. In fact, if Zuckerberg were smart, he'd actually be on board with something like that -- just to prove his point. But whatever he does, I'll still remember that I look out for my interests and my privacy -- not facebook.
@Dan: If you're going to do an 'OAMG I know your personal details!' job, either do it right or don't do it at all. The Internet is a very big place, and I have a very common name. Your actions were rather reckless, ignorant, and I doubt that other gents of the surname Miller would be nearly as kind about it as I have been (hint: a former state Attorney General shares my name).
==
@dhavleak: I passed on criticizing Zukerberg full-on because by myself alone, I have no power to influence the needed change in his attitude. OTOH, when he sees his business start dropping like a rock, I figure the lesson should by then be sufficiently painful enough to get his attention. If his busniess doesn't change, then one of three things would be true:
1) his mouth and his policies never meet, or
2) people really don't give a damn about privacy, or
3) the vast majority of Facebook users don't have any idea about the contents of this article, and others like it.
*shrug* - what can you or I do otherwise?
"He'd make it public to make even more money by selling the information. Er, they do that now and call it "accidental leaks"."
If all information was publicly available that would in fact have the opposite effect, why pay for something that is freely available?
Personally, i think Zuckerberg is talking rubbish. I am sure most people are unaware of the dangers of making certain personal information available online and if they knew would be more concerned about privacy issues.
I wouldn't be surprised if they started partnering with JOB sites to let employers search you on facebook.
Keep the privacy controls on the site and let choose (or fail to choose) our privacy settings.
I also enjoyed the irony of being given the opportunity to login to cnet using my Facebook ID.
They think that they have privacy until they're told that they don't. It's an illusion that has been shattered well before computers entered the home or office.
Feeling safe and being safe are not the same. If you want to feel safe while online, enjoy the illusion.
If you want to be safe, don't go online, don't use a phone, don't have a vehicle, don't subscribe to anything, and live in the woods, and always pay with cash.
There are ways in which a sufficiently-minded person can maintain privacy while online. The only trick is in how far you want to go to do that. No, it doesn't require living in the woods, or paying cash-only, either. Being "safe" merely means that you limit what you let on. Me, I have enough of a trail so that some random guy who wants to can learn about as much about me as I would happily tell you on the street anyway. The rest of the dot-connecting will require some rather illegal actions.
I'll let on which town I am in Maryland, but I will not give my FULL street address, because then (since my parent's name is on the home) it would take some REAL DOING to find out the rest of the information that I don't want known.
Heck, I've been on the internet for 10 years now and posting, and purchasing things online for 5.... and I have NEVER HAD MY IDENTITY STOLEN!
The reason? I keep a good eye on my credit reports and admit that I have had some problems myself with credit when I first got out ot high school and college.
We are really having the 'dangers' of the internet overdramatized.... even the pedosexual danger is overdramatized, because those people are VERY obvious when they are posting or when you meet them in real life, to the point where if someone's son/daughter is 'victimized' (and I mean forcibly raped ONLY), the parents should be railed at because they should have KNOWN that person was a pedosexual.
I don't know how to protest facebook besides finding a generic "contact us" email and sending it there. It probably won't even be read at that, so... with that being said. I love facebook. And I don't use it. Wait a minute, flip the adjectives around.
I think we're finding out that when lives of quiet desperation are handed a lightbulb online, they screw it in the internet socket by holding it up and letting the world revolve around them.
I agree that people are sharing more than they used to, but that does not mean they want less privacy, and I don't think he is saying that it does.
It's true that Facebook holds the privacy of many in the hands of the few and we are right to be concerned, however, it's a bit of a witch-hunt to use that as evidence that Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook are now going to turn privacy on its head in an instant.
In the end, we do control our privacy with Facebook - we choose what to share and what not to share. Think about it. One could circumnavigate Facebook and stick with email. I know people who quit Facebook and go with other means, you can too if you are so inclined.
As soon as you enter your info into Facebook its on the database for life. You deleting something or changing a privacy setting is only removing the data from view on a web interface level.
All your data still sits on the database, for at any time an intelligence officer wants to come along and make a decision about you.
Having held TS/SR clearance both as a civilian and as an Airman, I can tell you right now that the US Government does not need Facebook to find things out about you. OTOH, they do require permission from (at the very least) either you, or a judge (complete with a warrant) to get that information.
Those legal protections against unlawful search and seizure are important. If you do something illegal and are arrested based solely on illegally obtained information, you are pretty much assured that, unless you're a flaming idiot, you will walk out of the courtroom a free man. It keeps the government (federal, state, local) honest. As long as those protections are in place and are working, we as a people are still safe from any evil-doing. The system is certainly not perfect, but we don't exactly live in a tin-pot dictatorship, either.
PS: Coast-to-Coast AM is a guilty pleasure of mine - I listen to Mr. Noory too... but you got to stop taking them so seriously, yanno? ;)
I know that people [in the intelligence community] don't want privacy, [because I have met up with them, and there are people from the intelligence community working at Facebook to make sure decisions about features and policy get the go ahead, that are in tap and are compatible with the needs of the intelligence community and their technology and goals].
The basics of our lives will never be terribly difficult to dig up, the kind of information that gets recorded; whether financial or personal in nature. The stories about our lives, events, intimacies, etc. that are rarely recorded - those are the things you have to make a choice over revealing, and those are the things that can reasonably remain private if you so choose.
I'll probably never know, and they probably never get deleted
Oh well, ignorance is bliss.
- by Crow120 January 11, 2010 4:19 AM PST
- Ask a person in public their name, address, social security number and birth date. They will at the very least think you to be a loon, at worse they might alert the police. However, ask the same questions in their home? They will likely tell you what you asked then go on to tell you other things that you might not even have thought of. Setting, wording, and assumed privacy can make even the most reserved man as chatty as a child.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by Lerianis4 January 11, 2010 11:19 AM PST
- It shouldn't. The fact is that what you post online should NOT be taken into account by anyone, because it is TOO ********* EASY to fake being someone else. Hell, I've had someone fake being me numerous times on numerous forums and post some VERY strange things that could have gotten me in serious trouble (i.e. that I was having sex with children).
- Like this
-
- by SenorFrog January 11, 2010 2:57 PM PST
- @Lerianis4:
- Like this 1 person likes this comment
-
Showing 1 of 3 pages (77 Comments)I believe that the real problem is mis-information and (sometimes willful) ignorance. Were a lot of people to discover that they just spilled out their life story to a bunch of strangers in a very public setting they would promptly remove the information then discontinue using the product. The problem is the way things are explained away so as not to concern Joe Average that he or she is essentially sitting in a bar ranting to anyone who would take an ear.
Even in todays society I would guess that half or more people are relatively internet illiterate. I say internet because computer illiterate no longer applies. Even people that have no clue how to repair, or modify a setting in their own computer that they may have owned for a couple of years can navigate to the internet. Once they are there they believe that whatever they use doesn't follow them home. That's simply not true.
This ignorance is something these companies take advantage of. I don't know whither to damn them for their trickery or simply marvel at it. Myspace, when I first heard of it, and it's so called use boggled my mind. I thought to myself, "Why would someone share all of that information with people they don't even know?" I was told at the time that if someone did not want to share the information with everyone they did not have to. But, it was then as it is now with Facebook a feature that you must search for and enable. It must be enabled by the same people that cannot even understand why they would need to empty their computer's garbage. They don't understand that people can see everything they write and most would probably tell you that it is too much of a hassle to enable the privacy functions. They would say it's a bother rather than admit they didn't know something.
It's a sad situation and it will continue to worsen until people begin learning the hard way that what goes online might follow them offline.
Luckily, the few times the police I have come to my door, I was honest about what I had and hadn't posted with them, and they went away after I gave them my information and some of the copied postings that were not mine, showing that I had been monitoring this myself.
You, my friend, have got some serious enemies!