Showing posts with label privacy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label privacy. Show all posts

THE POWER OF 140 CHARACTERS OR LESS

Category : , ,


Inhabitants of the Twitter-verse are varied, and according to Computerworld there were 75 million roaming the landscape at the start of 2010. My Twitter identity was conceived in early 2009, but I was one of the 80% who didn’t do much save the initial tweet. What could I possibly contribute in 140 characters? My life was on Facebook for classmates, family and colleagues to see, so why duplicate the effort on Twitter.

Then I was hired as a social media coordinator for a high-profile performing arts center. The organization had already instituted the basic social media elements on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, but to take the messaging and branding to the next level of interaction, I would have to understand Twitter on my own terms. So I embraced it wholeheartedly and my Twitter persona
was resurrected. I quickly realized that the Twitter experience wasn’t redundant at all. It was a unique space, as David Carr, New York Times cultural reporter who was once as skeptical as I was, explains:
“On Twitter, anyone may follow anyone, but there is very little expectation of reciprocity. By carefully curating the people you follow, Twitter becomes an always-on data stream from really bright people in their respective fields, whose tweets are often full of links to incredibly vital, timely information. The most frequent objection to Twitter is a predictable one: “I don’t need to know someone is eating a donut right now.” But if that someone is a serious user of Twitter, she or he might actually be eating the curmudgeon’s lunch, racing ahead with a clear, up-to-the-second picture of an increasingly connected, busy world."
Even with this revelation, the skeptic in me found another area of concern. What privacy concerns exist when anyone can follow anyone else? This may seem irrelevant, because only the user can post tweets on their feed. If you don’t want it out there, then don’t tweet it. The other option is to protect your tweets and approve followers akin to Facebook friend requests. However, only 10% of Twitter users protect their tweets, and this seems prohibitive. I choose accounts to follow based on the content, and I reasonably expect that those following me have a similar purpose or intent. And this expectation brings me to the extraordinary example of Sarah Killen, aka Lovely Button on Twitter. If you’re asking “Who?” then let me provide a little background via The Huffington Post:
“Last week, Sarah Killen had three Twitter followers. This week, she has 20,000 – as well as a new iMac computer and offers to help pay for a dress and drinks for her wedding. The unsuspecting rural Michigan woman has one out-of-work late-night talk show host to thank for her newfound online popularity – Conan O'Brien. O'Brien decided last week to pick Killen as the only person he would follow on Twitter, turning the 19-year-old's life upside down.”
To date, there is peripheral negative impact as Ms. Killen “sleeps a few hours each night, has fallen woefully behind on her schoolwork and day-to-day activities such as laundry and rarely leaves the house.” Life would be no different if she were attending law school. In fact, she has seemingly taken her newfound web-celebrity status in stride and is promoting several charities. So maybe this is less a privacy concern and more an issue of extending Lovely Button’s reach beyond a level of her reasonable expectation when she started tweeting. After all, her tweets expressing her love for gummy dinosaurs and peanut butter would put her in the list of Twitter users people predictably ignore according to David Carr.

Chatroulette

Category : , , , ,

Introducing the new kid on the block in the world of extreme social media: Chatroulette.

The concept is simple. You click "Play" and are immediately connected with a random stranger. You can either choose to chat (via video, audio or text) with that person or click "Next" to be randomly connected to a new person.

The thing that makes Chatroulette so intriguing is also what makes the site nerve-wracking: you never know what you are going to get. I entered the fascinating Chatroulette world, purely for research purposes (ahem), and in 30 minutes I was connected to beatboxers, a guy in a Richard Nixon mask, a lovely couple in New York state, a college freshman, and enough genitals to make me quit halfway through the hour I alloted for research. My venture into the world of Chatroulette was typical; in an initial study, The Web Ecology Project, an interdisciplinary research group, found that clicking through Chatroulette yields 80 percent people, 9 percent altered images or people wearing masks, 7 percent nothing, and 5 percent genitals.

In his article on NY Mag, aptly titled The Human Shuffle, Sam Anderson discusses the potential dangers of using the site:
[T]here are privacy issues—-people taking screengrabs of other users in the half-second they happen to be looking at a pornographic image, then spreading them around the web. (I’m sure there are at least 300 images of me wincing at a masturbating stranger.) Sexual predators have never had an easier way to expose themselves, potentially even to children (the site has no apparent age limit). And then there’s the threat of violence. One popular shock image, a picture of a man who’s hanged himself, is terrifying even after you realize it’s fake: It makes you think about the possibility of someone actually hurting themselves, or someone else, in the unmappable ether of social-media space.
Certainly, there are significant risks associated with interacting in a world of 20,000 anonymous strangers. The concerns are particularly potent when children join the fray. Although the Terms of Service mandate that users be over the age of 16, there is no process by which people validate their age before clicking "Play." And, anyway, as we've seen with similar social media outlets, these requirements are easily bypassed by savvy children and teens. Child protection advocates are calling the site a "predator's paradise" and I have to admit that, even as a liberal thinking thirty-something, I felt shocked and violated by some of my (brief) interactions. It is certainly not a site I would want my younger sister to participate in--and she's 19.

But, the legal environment surrounding Chatroulette is complicated. Ryan Calo, an attorney and residential fellow at Stanford University's Center for Internet and Society, admits that it's difficult to know if the website violates any laws.
Surely broadcasting oneself masturbating, which by many accounts is a significant Chatroulette hobby, could run afoul of public indecency laws and/or spottily enforced (and constitutionally suspect) federal laws banning the use of electronic communications to harass. I suppose it's conceivable that, in some jurisdictions, successful use of the service in an effort to find unlawful material might trigger criminal liability, but this would very much depend on the level of intent required under the statute (ordinary curious users should have nothing to worry about).
Our very own Professor Anupam Chander said, in an interview with FoxNews.com, that while it is easy for authorities to suggest that the site is contributing to public indecency, it is considerably more difficult to hold the site liable. According to Chander, the Communications Decency Act of 1996 may exempt Chatroulette from civil liability. The Act has been interpreted to immunize operators of Internet services from liability for the acts of third parties using the service.

Clealy, Chatroulette raises a number of serious questions: Who would be responsible, legally, for any of the content on the site? How would it be proven that somebody intended to cause harm? How would prosecutors get copies of indecent actions broadcast on the site? And how would they go about finding the users, when registration is not required to participate?

In other words, as Calo puts it, "Chatroulette would make a good cyberlaw exam."