Furey: Facebook attack misses mark
August 15, 2011 by admin
Filed under Lingerie Events
Several weeks ago a video was posted online allegedly by the hacker collective known as Anonymous. The video urged online hackers around the world to work together on Nov. 5 to ‘destroy’ social networking site Facebook. Anonymous has taken credit for attacks on Sony, Bank of America and PayPal, to name a few.
The rationale for the Nov. 5 campaign was that Facebook violates individual privacy. It stores a cache of all of your activity which it can then offer up to corporations or governments for money. Your messages remain in their possession. When you delete your account you’re not really deleting it. The information still remains tucked away on their servers. It’s just no longer an active, publicly visible profile.
Soon after, representatives of Anonymous issued a statement saying that while the anti-Facebook campaign may have been created by members in their network, the group as a whole does not support the plan.
That’s comforting in some sense, but still unnerving to know that there are people out there who are hatching such a plan and trying to drum up support. I feel they’re missing part of our social contract, or should I say user contract. If you don’t want Facebook to have your information forever and if you don’t want them to sell it to companies and use it for other such purposes then you shouldn’t be placing your information on a network that they own and operate.
Ultimately, it’s buyer beware, use at your own risk, etc. It’s what comes from not reading the fine print. How many of us properly read the ‘terms of use’ when we sign up for a new e-mail account, credit card, even car purchase? I’m guessing not too many.
I remember when this first dawned on me. I realized that Facebook wasn’t like talking on my cellphone, or meeting someone in the park. It was like writing back and forth with someone on a bathroom wall.
Anyone who goes into the bathroom can read the scrawl and join in. Also if the restaurant were to close its doors my scribbles would remain on the wall, the property of the building’s owner.
My response wasn’t to rail against Facebook, but to go ‘Oops, I better be more careful with what I say.’
The Facebook story reminded me of an agitated reader who got in touch with us here at the paper. Several months ago she had sent in a letter to the editor and the letter was selected for publication. Not only was it printed in the physical newspaper, but it appeared on-line on our website. This happens with all of our content and it happens at most major newspapers across the world.
When the woman searched her name on-line this letter came up. She was frustrated to see that the letter remained in our archives, visible to the world, and called to complain. She wanted it taken down.
The letter made critical statements about a city department. The woman said if she wanted to apply for a job at that department they might find the critical words she’d once issued against them.
While the woman was polite enough, it irked me that she firmly believe we had mislead her and all other readers of our paper.
However the problem wasn’t that we had kept her letter on-line, the problem was that she hadn’t carefully thought out whether or not she wanted to commit to the words.
The world has changed a great deal with the predominance of the Internet in our daily lives. It’s no longer true that what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas. These days, we all have to think before we speak.
