I advise about-to-be-graduating students, people thinking about political office, and folks in the job hunt to double-check privacy settings on their social networks. I suggest that they restrict their photos to “intimate friends” (my language) and not “the world.”
However, I don’t do a good enough job of advising them to double-check their significant other’s privacy settings.
Sir John Sawers, newly appointed MI6 chief, has learned that lesson the hard way.
According to The (London) Telegraph:
[H]is wife’s posting on the social networking site [Facebook] have exposed potentially compromising details about where they live and work, their friends and where they go on holiday.
Lady Shelley Sawers put no privacy protection on the account, meaning that any of Facebook’s 200 million users in the ‘London’ network could see the entries, no matter where they were in the world.
Oops.
When I was in San Francisco in May, I met up with a college friend. She asked that all of us who were posting photos not to include her last name. That’s an admonition most parents make regarding their children. It’s one that many of us might consider requesting in advance, as it’s much easier to nip compromising photos in the bud in “real time” than retroactively.
This anecdote reminds me of my junior year at the University of Georgia. I was running for senior class secretary. I got a call from a friend that the campus daily, the Red&Black, had a photo of me at a campaign party in “half blink” … which made me look inebriated. (Shoot, half-blink will make most people look inebriated!) Note: this was before cellphones and the internet! I don’t recall who got my resultant panicked telephone call, but the photo did not run. And yes, I was elected.
This personal story shows that compromising or suggestive photos are nothing new. What is new is today’s real-time, almost-ubiquitous web with millions of cameras (cellphones) and push-button publishing making the photos more easily accessible to everyone.
This post first appeared at WiredPen
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Subscribe to Comments
Follow us on Twitter
Get email updates
8 Comments, Comment or Ping
Joey Mornin
I’m not sure I agree. Privacy is more important than ever, but so is transparency, and the two need not exclude each other. Digital media undermine our privacy in some pretty dangerous ways, but they also hold us accountable.
If there’s something you want to keep private, I think you ought to do it privately. If you do it in front of other people in a public setting, you can’t expect to hide it from the world (no matter how drunk you are).
If I’m thinking about hiring you or voting for you in ten years, I’m going to expect that there are some funny and embarrassing pictures of you online somewhere. If there aren’t any… who ARE you, really? I have no way of knowing! I’m much more comfortable knowing that you’re an open, sincere person.
That said, privacy is one of the most important rights, and you should be in control. But if you come to a party at my house, get drunk, and do something really entertaining, you should expect a photo to end up online somewhere. Don’t worry–it’s happened to all of us, and we’ll still hire you!
Jul 7th, 2009
Joey Mornin
Of course, if your girlfriend is posting where you live and work and when you’re going on vacation, that’s not ok.
Jul 7th, 2009
Bon Kelly
I find Mr. Mornin’s comment..”That said, privacy is one of the most important rights, and you should be in control. But if you come to a party at my house, get drunk, and do something really entertaining, you should expect a photo to end up online somewhere. Don’t worry–it’s happened to all of us, and we’ll still hire you!” a bit unrealistic. How about including a mention about some common sense censoring by the presumed poster of said event. Does one not think before one speaks, or doesn’t one edit all sorts of content before submitting it ? C’mon dude your comment is good nice writing, but not based in reality.
I think judging someone’s sincerity by whether they are open to sharing every moment, or expecting others to share it is misguided. Not everyone is living their life in the expectation/fantasy that the world needs to witness it. While much of this conflict is generational and as time marches by institutions may share some of Mr. Mornin’s feelings. All the better I suppose. However, it is nice to be able to get away from it all sometimes. Eh ?
Jul 7th, 2009
Joey Mornin
> “How about including a mention about some common sense censoring by the presumed poster of said event.”
Yes, I agree that posting personal information at that level of detail isn’t ok (see my second comment). What I question is this:
“I suggest that they restrict their photos to “intimate friends” (my language) and not “the world.”
Like I said, if you want something to be kept private, do it privately–and it that case, your right to privacy is important and should be inalienable. But if you do something publicly, it’s a sign of sincerity to be transparent about it. We, the digital generation, respect and value your right to privacy–but we will notice if you’re secretive.
Jul 7th, 2009
Joey Mornin
I should also mention: I think privacy norms are the key issue here. Lessig notes that when we’re in a bookstore, looking at books, we expect that nobody is going to follow us around recording which books we look at. There’s no law preventing someone from doing that–it’s just the way our privacy norms have evolved, based on our physical environment. In the digital environment, there are no such norms. They’re starting to evolve–Kathy’s post is an attempt to identify and influence them–but they are by no means widely recognized.
Greater transparency is one of the great promises of the digital age. We need to recognize (and legislate) our privacy expectations, and we need to protect privacy more than ever. We also need to recognize (and embrace) the value of greater public transparency.
Jul 7th, 2009
Kathy
Hi, Joey:
This exchange probably illustrates a generation gap. Or cynicism (me) versus idealism (you).
In a perfect world, I agree with you. I just don’t think the political world has reached that level of comfort with “openness” — nor do I think the hiring world has. Mayhaps when your generation is in charge, in a couple of decades, that idealism will prevail.
In the interim, the most important thing is probably awareness: to have people know about and then consciously choose an appropriate (for them) level of privacy.
Jul 9th, 2009
Joey Mornin
Or narcissism, on my part–believing that everyone will think like me
I don’t think it’s to that point either (that’s the cynic in me). If things go well, I think it’s possible that they’ll get to that point in 15 years (that’s the idealist).
Jul 9th, 2009
Nicole Pairlee
I tend to agree with Joey.
But… upon getting a job managing social media for a non profit, I changed my Facebook privacy to “friends” only. My identity is sometimes revealed online to my company’s community, and I need to assume that information about me can be wrongly reflected on the organization (because of issues such as the “generation gap”). With that said, I have no issue “friending” my current boss on FB.
Jul 13th, 2009
Reply to “Watch Those Privacy Settings!”