Posted by: madcam on: September 16, 2009
It’s official. Facebook is now not only it’s own country (let’s face it, it’s been that for a while), but now a bigger country than that of the self-proclaimed best country in the World – the United States of America. And to be bigger in population than all but 4 countries in the World is nothing to be sneezed at.
According to RWW, Facebook’s userbase has just passed the 300 million ACTIVE user mark. Mind-blowing. Too large to really be able to truly comprehend methinks. One of the World’s largest “‘eco-system”s is virtual.
So if such a virtual land can claim supremecy over other physical lands by virtue of the size of its population, then surely it will be a natural progression for it to be eligible to determine it’s own political and social policies, in isolation from (in the best case scenario) or in direct conflict with (in a worst case scenario) policies that currently are determined and exercised by the physical countries that the Republic of Facebook’s inhabitants actually inhabit? At what point does a community gain the right to decree its own agenda? Is it based on the size of the community? Or on needs that arise to correct ‘wrong-doings’ within a community? Is it set by the people or by it’s leaders? And what part does capitalism play???
Ok, perhaps I’m getting ahead of myself. Perhaps this report will remain of relevance to the general population purely as an interesting fact – nothing more. Or will it…
Posted by: madcam on: August 20, 2009
The dam has burst me thinks upon Facebook, with the recent announcement about a law suit against them from members who feel their privacy has been compromised.
The points these plaintiffs make vary a little, but essentially hold the common theme that images and information they believed to be theirs to control when uploaded to the social utility proved not to be.
How many times do you see a photo of a Facebook friend that belongs in an Album of someone you don’t know?
Not only can you view this photo of your Friend, but more often than not you’re able to see all the other photos within that album that don’t contain anyone in your network of Friends. Hell, you can even post comments about those photos!
And you see what events your Friends are attending — even though they are not events that you are personally invited to.
I think Facebook epitomises the growing concern of web development in general — there is too much focus on evolution of the offer, and nowhere near enough consideration of the unanticipated ramifications or testing of these new developments prior to implementation.
Don’t get me wrong – I’m not saying Facebook don’t test their website development. In fact I’m sure they do. But how is it possible to conduct fully comprehensive testing of functionality driven by personalisation, when at the very core of the development is the evolution of personalisation itself? How can one company possibly test for all possible personalisation scenarios that exist for 250 million users?
Quite simply, they can’t. And so post-implementation blues rend the air from the countless souls who end up experiencing the full brunt of these changes, inevitability through the sharp and painful personal exposure of their information to other people in a way they never expected. These moments can be significantly life altering and heart breaking. But does Facebook – or any social utility – appreciate the intimacy with which their tools have been woven into the fibres of people’s lives? The extent of the damage that a personalisation tweak here or a share-this-with-a-friend change there can do?
Truly? I think not…
But read it for yourself: http://news.ninemsn.com.au/technology/851589/five-users-sue-facebook-for-being-too-popular
Posted by: madcam on: August 8, 2009
So, I lodged a question with the Privacy Commissioner about this Facebook issue. It seems that a company can operate via the internet to Australians without having to meet any of Australia’s privacy laws.
I still believe that in this case information is being collected about an individual without that individual’s permission, and given the global pervasiveness of the internet, it is reasonable to expect individual country’s privacy laws to extend to situations that information is provided from their country, even if it is not housed in that country.
My investigation will continue…
Here’s the full response from the Privacy commissioner:
“Thank you for your enquiry and concern about privacy issues relating to Facebook. I understand your concerns, however it is not a matter this Office can assist with.
The Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) (the Act) contains 10 National Privacy Principles which regulate the way personal information is managed by many Australian private sector organisations.
Jurisdiction of the Act
The Act is limited in how it applies to organisations outside Australia. Generally speaking, an individual’s personal information will be protected by the Act when collected, used, stored and disclosed in Australia by organisations bound by the Act.
For Facebook to have obligations under the Act, the organisation must satisfy the requirements of section 5B of the Act, which broadly relates to whether the organisation carries on business in Australia, and collects or holds personal information in Australia.
Facebook, as a US-based company, is not currently considered to be ‘carrying on business’ in Australia, and does not appear to collect or store information in Australia. As such, the organisation does not meet the requirements of s5B, which has the effect of excluding its overseas acts and practices from the requirements of the Act.
Please note however, that Facebook may at any time in the future become subject to the requirements of the Act, if their business operations in this country change to the extent that they would be considered to be carrying on a business in Australia and collecting or holding information in Australia (i.e. meeting s5B(3) requirements).
I hope that this response clarifies the current situation with regards to Facebook and the Act.”
Posted by: madcam on: July 31, 2009
I’m pretty pissed off!
Yesterday I noticed that Facebook was ‘suggesting’ to me people that I knew. However since they were not people that are friends of my existing Facebook friends, I decided to try to find out how on earth they were correctly assigning a link between us.
Some speculate that Facebook is now tracking emails they have sent and in an extra phase of ‘creepiness’ is popping up recipients of emails they have sent in some cases years earlier. http://drownedinsound.com/community/boards/social/4185176. This thread even suggests to change your email address will stop the Suggestions.
Others however seem to have cottoned on to what’s happening – it seems that if someone imports their email contact list, and it includes your name, then you will them ‘suggested’ as a friend. And in turn, they will be suggested as a friend to you. http://blogoscoped.com/archive/2009-06-12-n15.html and http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31684082/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/
Now Facebook has answer. “Just turn off that feature in your Friend Finder settings“.
But…what if you DON’T USE Friend Finder OR have NEVER chosen to import your email address list? How do you exercise control over not receiving these notifications from other people with your email address in their contacts who haven’t exercised such privacy-savvy self-control…
Hmmm – delving further to find the answer
Posted by: madcam on: May 9, 2009
When Tweeting, one must be succinct.
When Tweeting, one tries to be interesting (and dare I say compelling).
Makes perfect sense for the British Government to draft 20 pages on the do’s and don’t's of Twitter and Tweeting to be sure that one can meet the remit of the first two points! http://cli.gs/VhGDr
But seriously, mainstream organisations are starting to shift from the paradigm of being frightened of using social media to being frightened of not using social media. And by mainstream, I’m generally referring to large and medium sized businesses who are nervous about what a few bad customer comments through social media might do their reputation and share price.
However the fear of being a corporate dinosaur is starting to burn in many of these organisations. So naturally the next step is to consider carefully and draft diligently a social media policy that will incorporate appropriate degrees of forethought and contingency planning - so as to alleviate the company of the burden of embarrassment should their customers actually engage through these media and profess a personal opinion that is not aligned with current ‘messages’.
Can I blame these companies for being cautious? No. Am I frustrated by the slow pace of evolution in conservative companies? You’d better believe it.
But to be fair, the lows of personal use of social media is increasingly becoming documented – particularly in relation to the issues of privacy and copyright of digital assets. And so it is understandable to see this hesitation take physical form through the drafting of policy that is more effective at quashing internal fear than I imagine it will ultimately be in protecting against public incident.
