I’ve been reading some of the commentary around remarks made by Mark Zuckerberg, CEO Facebook during an interview at a recent awards ceremony. Viewed from this side of The Pond it makes for alarming reading. The Huffington Post puts out a partial transcription of the whole interview. The key points:
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…
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.
A lot of companies would be trapped by the conventions and their legacies of what they’ve built, doing a privacy change – doing a privacy change for 350 million users is not the kind of thing that a lot of companies would do. But we viewed that as a really important thing, 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.
My emphasis added.
As The Register’s Joe Fay says somewhat sarcastically:
Mark Zuckerberg has revealed that he is a prophet, declaring that he had foreseen that people will soon have no qualms about displaying every minute detail of their private lives on the internet…
If Zuckerberg really has this gift of second sight, wouldn’t it have just been easier to place some kind of accumulator bet on the world series? Least that way no-one would have had to see pictures of him lounging around the pool.
What does and does not constitute social norms are heavily influenced by culturally accepted practices, buttressed by legislation designed for our protection. Sometimes those laws seem arcane or less than well formed. The Data Protection Act in the era of the Internet is one that springs to mind. But for a corporation to simply attempt to sweep aside otherwise accepted notions of privacy is treading into extremely dangerous waters.
Facebook has plenty of experience running the gauntlet of privacy issues. Making these statements gives you an indication of the company’s intent – mine as much as it can about you, pattern match and then use that for targeted advertising by its customers. Innocuous you might say. But then is this really where we’re going? And who else might see that same data, perhaps using it for their own nefarious wants? Goodness knows I get spammed enough by companies I’ve never heard of (presumably because someone’s mined my online data) with requests about things in which I am often at best marginally interested or which are utterly irrelevant to my areas of interest. How much worse if my entire social data is ‘out there.’
I see plenty of people more than happy to provide all sorts of information on Facebook. Most recently, one of our children posted a school video from way back when. Nice to share among the family but does the world and his dog need access to this? We’re sent photos of grand children via Facebook. That’s nice too but again, is it appropriate to be providing it to a service that has decided privacy no longer matters? Even if it does provide a get out through privacy settings? Can they be trusted when you know that’s the direction THEY think we should all go?
I constantly remind family members – please be careful with whom you share that stuff. I only ever put on Facebook things I don’t think can give me problems further down the track – which is pretty much nothing going to FB. And I only ever ‘friend’ people with whom I have a close tie. Anything else is just too SCARY.
Is it any surprise then that when it comes to putting accounting data into the Internet cloud that some become worried? Yet another reason to consider the risks, however great or small they might be.
Related articles by Zemanta
- Do we share too much online? Zuckerberg speaks (timesonline.typepad.com)
- Facebook CEO Zuckerberg causes stir over privacy (macworld.com)
- Facebook’s New Age Social Mantra – End of the Privacy Era! (sporkings.com)
- Zuckerberg: People Are Comfortable Without Privacy, So We Threw Them All Over The Cliff (techdirt.com)
- Facebook’s Zuckerberg Says Forget Privacy (yro.slashdot.org)
- Zuckerberg: ‘I am a prophet’ (theregister.co.uk)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=e4809fef-9e16-4219-8ea0-791173134f68)
Comments on this entry are closed.
Get into the conversation
Bottom line is Facebook wants to monetize your emotional experiences and connections and hope that you don’t understand the privacy and career implications of playing it a little loose. I’m amazed by how many smart friends of mine “love” Facebook without a second thought as to Facebook’s business agenda and what that means for personal data. There is always a catch with “free.”
While I’m concerned about FB, I am equally concerned about other services that play fast and loose with our privacy. It has strong implications for SaaS vendors because it is one of the top of mind questions I see consistently in discussions.
Bottom line is Facebook wants to monetize your emotional experiences and connections and hope that you don't understand the privacy and career implications of playing it a little loose. I'm amazed by how many smart friends of mine "love" Facebook without a second thought as to Facebook's business agenda and what that means for personal data. There is always a catch with "free."
While I'm concerned about FB, I am equally concerned about other services that play fast and loose with our privacy. It has strong implications for SaaS vendors because it is one of the top of mind questions I see consistently in discussions.
But you hit on a straightforward disconnect between what people think facebook (the internet) is, and what it actually is; and a more fundamental point about how people “work” – or to put it another way “there is one born every minute”!
I am not sure the answer is to make facebook and the like work to “your rules”. Why not let caveat emptor apply?
I agree that it is a problem for a software vendor trying to sell a “cloud” model; and why I think getting the security right is a real USP.
@alastair – it’s a fair point but what’s happening here is that a single company with 350 million users is using that power to declare a position THEY determined as being the norm. ‘One born every minute’ may be something we all need to be aware of but quite frankly, how many people realize what this means? Precious few I’d suggest. Taken together I see this as a dangerous and subtle usurping of ‘our’ rights. FB 1st, who next? Google is already in my sights on this one. As to the security issue you mention – trust me, smart minds are working on it
Dennis, I understand where you are coming from, but I think you have to remember that facebook is a private asset – you use it on their terms. Perhaps it is disingenuous to put the onus on the user to exercise commonsense, but then how far do you take this? I don’t have a problem with people taking the time to hightlight the problems to users, and lobby the owners to make changes (perhaps someone might set up a facebook group on the matter (!) but I strongly think it is a dangerous path to take in being overprotective of people’s commonsense (or lack of it).
I get the data security issues in a modern world, and perhaps at some point the banks might drive the market by how they treat victims of financial fraud who posted personal details on places like facebook, but don’t forget the law of unintended consequences.
Apologies for the rant!
But you hit on a straightforward disconnect between what people think facebook (the internet) is, and what it actually is; and a more fundamental point about how people "work" – or to put it another way "there is one born every minute"!I am not sure the answer is to make facebook and the like work to "your rules". Why not let caveat emptor apply?I agree that it is a problem for a software vendor trying to sell a "cloud" model; and why I think getting the security right is a real USP.
@alastair – it's a fair point but what's happening here is that a single company with 350 million users is using that power to declare a position THEY determined as being the norm. 'One born every minute' may be something we all need to be aware of but quite frankly, how many people realize what this means? Precious few I'd suggest. Taken together I see this as a dangerous and subtle usurping of 'our' rights. FB 1st, who next? Google is already in my sights on this one. As to the security issue you mention – trust me, smart minds are working on it
Dennis, I understand where you are coming from, but I think you have to remember that facebook is a private asset – you use it on their terms. Perhaps it is disingenuous to put the onus on the user to exercise commonsense, but then how far do you take this? I don't have a problem with people taking the time to hightlight the problems to users, and lobby the owners to make changes (perhaps someone might set up a facebook group on the matter (!) but I strongly think it is a dangerous path to take in being overprotective of people's commonsense (or lack of it).I get the data security issues in a modern world, and perhaps at some point the banks might drive the market by how they treat victims of financial fraud who posted personal details on places like facebook, but don't forget the law of unintended consequences.Apologies for the rant!
Nice
If Zuckerberg really has this gift of second sight, wouldn’t it have just been easier to place some kind of accumulator bet on the world series? Least that way no-one would have had to see pictures of him lounging around the pool.
Nice
If Zuckerberg really has this gift of second sight, wouldn’t it have just been easier to place some kind of accumulator bet on the world series? Least that way no-one would have had to see pictures of him lounging around the pool.
Of course privacy matters, but everyone has to decide how much it matters to themselves! Guess why people don’t have a lot of strangers in their living room going through all their Information… cause they lock the door!
Why someone does not lock private Information on the Internet does not make Sense, because the general Idea of privacy has reached each and everyone somehow.
The Facebook problem isn’t really a problem because every user can a) leave Facebook or b) protect their Information! It just isn’t really peachy sweet…
If you allow Applications to access your Information, don’t be suprised that they actually do access your Information. If you allow everyone to see your Information, don’t be surprised if someone actually does!
I am glad that the topic is raised again and again, just to raise awareness. But at the end of the day: If you want to keep something private, just keep it private! don’t rely on others to do it for you!
Of course privacy matters, but everyone has to decide how much it matters to themselves! Guess why people don't have a lot of strangers in their living room going through all their Information… cause they lock the door!Why someone does not lock private Information on the Internet does not make Sense, because the general Idea of privacy has reached each and everyone somehow.The Facebook problem isn't really a problem because every user can a) leave Facebook or b) protect their Information! It just isn't really peachy sweet…If you allow Applications to access your Information, don't be suprised that they actually do access your Information. If you allow everyone to see your Information, don't be surprised if someone actually does!I am glad that the topic is raised again and again, just to raise awareness. But at the end of the day: If you want to keep something private, just keep it private! don't rely on others to do it for you!
Bottom line is Facebook wants to monetize your emotional experiences and connections and hope that you don't understand the privacy and career implications of playing it a little loose. I'm amazed by how many smart friends of mine “love” Facebook without a second thought as to Facebook's business agenda and what that means for personal data. There is always a catch with “free.”
While I'm concerned about FB, I am equally concerned about other services that play fast and loose with our privacy. It has strong implications for SaaS vendors because it is one of the top of mind questions I see consistently in discussions.
But you hit on a straightforward disconnect between what people think facebook (the internet) is, and what it actually is; and a more fundamental point about how people “work” – or to put it another way “there is one born every minute”!
I am not sure the answer is to make facebook and the like work to “your rules”. Why not let caveat emptor apply?
I agree that it is a problem for a software vendor trying to sell a “cloud” model; and why I think getting the security right is a real USP.
@alastair – it's a fair point but what's happening here is that a single company with 350 million users is using that power to declare a position THEY determined as being the norm. 'One born every minute' may be something we all need to be aware of but quite frankly, how many people realize what this means? Precious few I'd suggest. Taken together I see this as a dangerous and subtle usurping of 'our' rights. FB 1st, who next? Google is already in my sights on this one. As to the security issue you mention – trust me, smart minds are working on it
Dennis, I understand where you are coming from, but I think you have to remember that facebook is a private asset – you use it on their terms. Perhaps it is disingenuous to put the onus on the user to exercise commonsense, but then how far do you take this? I don't have a problem with people taking the time to hightlight the problems to users, and lobby the owners to make changes (perhaps someone might set up a facebook group on the matter (!) but I strongly think it is a dangerous path to take in being overprotective of people's commonsense (or lack of it).
I get the data security issues in a modern world, and perhaps at some point the banks might drive the market by how they treat victims of financial fraud who posted personal details on places like facebook, but don't forget the law of unintended consequences.
Apologies for the rant!
Dennis – interesting post. Personally I’m not overly concerned about the privacy implications of FB – as you know, my life is on FB, flickr and twitter for the world to see – personally I’m relaxed about that but happy that other prefer to keep more of a shield in place.
Where I disagree with your post however is in the last paras where you make the leap from FB’s questionable respect for privacy to questioning business applications in the cloud. I disagree for a number of reasons:
1) Facebook is a free service, people inherently understand (or should) that free services need to montize via other means, often this is data mining
2) Paid business services have an entirely different imperative – they monetize by doing a good job for their customers, both in terms of functionality and security – as such they have an absolutely vested interest in ensuring their customers data is safe and private
3) Paid services ca, and should, be backed up by SLAs and escrow services that ensure security and accessability at all times – again something that is pretty much entirely absent on more “consumer” focussed free sites
So yes, I agree there are some issues around privacy but to lump Facebook in with all the business SaaS/cloud providers is, in my humblest of opinions, disingenious
@ben – it is laissez faire attitudes around services such as FB that lead down a slippery slope. Check in to tomorrow’s Fisticuffs in the Cloud debate with Phil Wainewright, Vinnie Mirchandani, Narinder Signh and myself to hear an expanded version of this. It might change your mind.
@Dennis – I guess I contend that there’s two slopes, one for biz and one for free/consumer and that one slip doesn’t necessarily lead to a slide on the other. As to the webinar, I’ve already put it in my cal – will be *interesting*
@ben – bingo = that means you get riffed in a name check (lol)
Dennis – interesting post. Personally I'm not overly concerned about the privacy implications of FB – as you know, my life is on FB, flickr and twitter for the world to see – personally I'm relaxed about that but happy that other prefer to keep more of a shield in place.Where I disagree with your post however is in the last paras where you make the leap from FB's questionable respect for privacy to questioning business applications in the cloud. I disagree for a number of reasons:1) Facebook is a free service, people inherently understand (or should) that free services need to montize via other means, often this is data mining2) Paid business services have an entirely different imperative – they monetize by doing a good job for their customers, both in terms of functionality and security – as such they have an absolutely vested interest in ensuring their customers data is safe and private3) Paid services ca, and should, be backed up by SLAs and escrow services that ensure security and accessability at all times – again something that is pretty much entirely absent on more "consumer" focussed free sitesSo yes, I agree there are some issues around privacy but to lump Facebook in with all the business SaaS/cloud providers is, in my humblest of opinions, disingenious
@ben – it is laissez faire attitudes around services such as FB that lead down a slippery slope. Check in to tomorrow's Fisticuffs in the Cloud debate with Phil Wainewright, Vinnie Mirchandani, Narinder Signh and myself to hear an expanded version of this. It might change your mind.
Nice
If Zuckerberg really has this gift of second sight, wouldn’t it have just been easier to place some kind of accumulator bet on the world series? Least that way no-one would have had to see pictures of him lounging around the pool.
Of course privacy matters, but everyone has to decide how much it matters to themselves! Guess why people don't have a lot of strangers in their living room going through all their Information… cause they lock the door!
Why someone does not lock private Information on the Internet does not make Sense, because the general Idea of privacy has reached each and everyone somehow.
The Facebook problem isn't really a problem because every user can a) leave Facebook or b) protect their Information! It just isn't really peachy sweet…
If you allow Applications to access your Information, don't be suprised that they actually do access your Information. If you allow everyone to see your Information, don't be surprised if someone actually does!
I am glad that the topic is raised again and again, just to raise awareness. But at the end of the day: If you want to keep something private, just keep it private! don't rely on others to do it for you!
@Dennis – I guess I contend that there's two slopes, one for biz and one for free/consumer and that one slip doesn't necessarily lead to a slide on the other. As to the webinar, I've already put it in my cal – will be *interesting*
@ben – bingo = that means you get riffed in a name check (lol)
Dennis – interesting post. Personally I'm not overly concerned about the privacy implications of FB – as you know, my life is on FB, flickr and twitter for the world to see – personally I'm relaxed about that but happy that other prefer to keep more of a shield in place.
Where I disagree with your post however is in the last paras where you make the leap from FB's questionable respect for privacy to questioning business applications in the cloud. I disagree for a number of reasons:
1) Facebook is a free service, people inherently understand (or should) that free services need to montize via other means, often this is data mining
2) Paid business services have an entirely different imperative – they monetize by doing a good job for their customers, both in terms of functionality and security – as such they have an absolutely vested interest in ensuring their customers data is safe and private
3) Paid services ca, and should, be backed up by SLAs and escrow services that ensure security and accessability at all times – again something that is pretty much entirely absent on more “consumer” focussed free sites
So yes, I agree there are some issues around privacy but to lump Facebook in with all the business SaaS/cloud providers is, in my humblest of opinions, disingenious
@ben – it is laissez faire attitudes around services such as FB that lead down a slippery slope. Check in to tomorrow's Fisticuffs in the Cloud debate with Phil Wainewright, Vinnie Mirchandani, Narinder Signh and myself to hear an expanded version of this. It might change your mind.
@Dennis – I guess I contend that there's two slopes, one for biz and one for free/consumer and that one slip doesn't necessarily lead to a slide on the other. As to the webinar, I've already put it in my cal – will be *interesting*
@ben – bingo = that means you get riffed in a name check (lol)
great post Dennis
great post Dennis
great post Dennis
Get into the conversation