- Share This Post
- 3
- submit
- 9
-
Sparkle (0)
At SXSW, I decided to talk about privacy because I thought that it would be the most important issue of the year. I was more accurate than my wildest dreams. For the last month, I've watched as conversations about privacy went from being the topic of the tech elite to a conversation that's pervasive. The press coverage is overwhelming -- filled with infographics and a concerted effort by journalists to make sense of and communicate what seems to be a moving target.
I commend them for doing so.
My SXSW presentation used a bunch of different case studies, but folks focused on two: Google and Facebook. After my talk, I received numerous e-mails from folks at Google, including the PM in charge of Buzz. The tenor was consistent, effectively: "We fucked up, we're trying to fix it, please help us." What startled me was the radio silence from Facebook, although a close friend of mine told me that Randi Zuckerberg had heard it and effectively responded with a big ole ::gulp:: My SXSW critique concerned their decision in December, an irresponsible move that I felt put users at risk. I wasn't prepared for how they were going to leverage that data only a few months later.
As most of you know, Facebook has been struggling to explain its privacy-related decisions for the last month while simultaneously dealing with frightening security issues. If you're not a techie, I'd encourage you to start poking around. The New York Times is doing an amazing job keeping up with the story, as is TechCrunch, Mashable, and InsideFacebook. The short version ... people are cranky. Facebook thinks that it's just weirdo tech elites like me who are pissed off. They're standing firm and trying to justify why what they're doing is good for everyone. Their attitude has triggered the panic button amongst regulators and all sorts of regulators are starting to sniff around. Facebook hired an ex-Bush regulator to manage this. No one is quite sure what is happening, but Jason Calacanis thinks that Facebook has overplayed its hand. Meanwhile, security problems mean that even more content has been exposed, including e-mail addresses, IP addresses (your location), and full chat logs. This has only upped the panic amongst those who can imagine worst-case scenarios. Like the idea that someone out there is slowly piecing together IP addresses (location) and full names and contact information. A powerful database, and not one that anyone would be too happy to be floating around.
Amidst all of what's going on, everyone is anxiously awaiting David Kirkpatrick's soon-to-be-released The Facebook Effect, which basically outlines the early days of the company. Throughout the book, Kirkpatrick sheds light on why we're where we are today without even realizing where we'd be. Consider these two quotes from Zuckerberg:
- "We always thought people would share more if we didn't let them do whatever they wanted, because it gave them some order." - Zuckerberg, 2004
- "You have one identity ... The days of you having a different image for your work friends or co-workers and for the other people you know are probably coming to an end pretty quickly ... Having two identities for yourself is an example of a lack of integrity," - Zuckerberg, 2009
In trying to be a neutral reporter, Kirkpatrick doesn't critically interrogate the language that Zuckerberg or other executives use. At times, he questions them, pointing to how they might make people's lives challenging. But he undermines his own critiques by accepting Zuckerberg's premise that the tides, they are a turning. For example, he states that "The older you are, the more likely you are to find Facebook's exposure of personal information intrusive and excessive." Interestingly, rock-solid, non-marketing data is about to be released to refute this point. Youth are actually much more concerned about exposure than adults these days. Why? Probably because they get it. And it's why they're using fake names and trying to go on the DL (down-low).
With this backdrop in mind, I want to talk about a concept that Kirkpatrick suggests is core to Facebook: "radical transparency." In short, Kirkpatrick argues that Zuckerberg believes that people will be better off if they make themselves transparent. Not only that, society will be better off. (We'll ignore the fact that Facebook's purse strings may be better off, too.) My encounters with Zuckerberg lead me to believe that he genuinely believes this, he genuinely believes that society will be better off if people
