Category Archives: Protect Yourself

From Picture books to Facebook

Photo Source: USAG-Humphrey's (CC-BY)

The Vancouver Sun reports that Facebook is seeking out methods to allow children under 13 to participate in the social network. The article acknowledges that though kids 13 and under are currently prohibited from registered use on the site due to federal law, there is already an estimated 7.5 million Facebook users out of the 900 million+ who fall right into this age range.

Evidently, enforcement of this ban is difficult—lying about your age is hardly challenging, and in some cases, parents are the ones to set up accounts for their children.

Apart from speculation regarding the connection between Facebook’s recent lack of success on Wall Street and their desire to increase audience and profit, this move to include under-13ers unquestionably raises key issues of privacy, online identity and the world we live in today.

Kids in this day and age are certainly no strangers to Facebook. I work teaching Grade 1′s and the other day, one of my students proudly told me she was famous. When I asked her why, she responded saying she was in her mom’s most recent Facebook profile picture, therefore making her “famous.” It’s clear the implications of social media are obvious to even children as young as 6—in the way that they allow us to network and connect with vast amounts of people.  And it’s clear that even if the kids themselves aren’t yet on the site, information about them may already be in circulation—through the accounts (and profile pictures) of their parents, family and friends.

Photo Source: marsmet524 (CC-BY-NC-SA)

In an article from the Toronto Star, Dr. Joshua Gans is quoted saying, “It’s a form of social interaction. You’d no more want to shield your kid from Facebook than you would keep them out of the playground at school, or from talking to adults at the party. It’s like social training wheels. You have to be concerned about privacy, but that’s part of the skill here, when it is appropriate to share information and not to share information.”

Contrastingly, James Styer, chief executive of Common Sense Media, questions, “Why on earth do we want seven or eight-year-olds on Facebook? Little kids need to learn to connect face to face.”

Could legally letting little kids onto a social networking giant such as Facebook possibly be just taking premature measures of what is inevitable? Could it even be beneficial to their digital education? For example, if exposed at a young age, will they be more aware of the digital tattoo they are creating for themselves?  Or could it just be detrimental to their growth as citizens in both the online and offline worlds? Will it further compromise their privacy and identity, commodities so preciously valued in our digital age?

Share your thoughts below.

Gliph me, maybe: how privacy and connectivity may be able to coexist after all

In Carly Rae Jepsen’s intensely catchy song “Call Me, Maybe” she offers her number to a stranger she has just met and acknowledges that though “it might sound crazy,” she’d like it if he called her (, maybe.)

But maybe Carly Rae isn’t as crazy as she thinks she might sound. Rob Banagale, co-founder of Gliph, made a similar observation, noticing that the way we exchange information with people we just met was outmoded; that asking for a number carried a lot more weight than it used to, whereas email addresses seemed corny, and Facebook not exactly appropriate.

With all of this, in addition to the increasing debate around privacy and the ever growing presence of social networks and the lack of trust that seemed to surround them, Gliph was born.

A fairly new start-up based out of Portland, Oregon, Gliph’s aim is to achieve natural relationship in helping people build connections with others, going from strangers to fully developed human relationships, whether personal or business. Gliph wants to allow you to continue to connect freely, but prioritizes the protection of your personal information.

Claiming a “gliph” is like kicking off a sort of digital identity for yourself, assembling different aspects of who you are under different symbols — “artifacts”– that personify who you are. Gliphs are composed of symbols, making your identity global and culturally neutral.

We got the chance to ask Rob a few questions about Gliph:

Q: What are you most excited about?

A: The potential Gliph has to change the way people communicate with each other in the information they share. Gliph allows you to share exactly what you want to share with who, changing the way people communicate in terms of social signals as well as making connections.

Q: Why do you think a digital identity platform is important?

A: Gliph is trying to make your personal information more useful and valuable. Right now, personal information is being bought and sold, and that’s not really valuable to you. We want to change the way people view the value of their own personal information. We want to make you feel more in control of it, and more powerful than you would be if you didn’t use it. We want to put the control back in your hands.

Q: What makes you different?

A: Facebook and Google+ store all your private info in plain text, Gliph encrypts it.

Q: Best moment so far?

A: Presenting at Privacy Identity and Innovation Conference (pii 2012) and winning the Innovator Spotlight award. It was industry validation from the privacy community that showed we were on the right track; that we were different.

Q: Any Gliph success stories?

A: A friend randomly searched someone because they were the opposite Gliph than their own. They talked on Gliph, then became Facebook friends, went hiking, and had a pizza. All cause of Gliph!

Beaming: James Cameron may have been onto something with “Avatar”

A family dressed as the avatars

Photo Source: Federico Campoli (CC BY-NC-SA)

Last week we saw the parallels between ourselves and superheroes as seen in “the Avengers.” However, it appears as though we may soon have more in common with Academy Award winning “Avatar” instead.

According to BBC News, the European Commission is funding a project to

“investigate how a person can visit a remote location via the internet and feel fully immersed in the new environment…[where] the visitor may be embodied as an avatar or a robot, interacting with real people.”

At this year’s Coachella, an extremely realistic hologram of the deceased Tupac came back to join Snoop Dogg and Dr. Dre in a mind-blowing performance that few words can explain. Soon after, jokes were made about Coachella 2013’s “all-ghost” lineup. But with also deceased Freddie Mercury set to make a similar virtual appearance in London next Monday, it seems as if this I’m-here-but-not-really-here technology is indeed here—and here to stay.

The article describes how teleconferencing, overseas relationships, education, and the medical field would be transformed by this advancement in augmented reality that has already successfully “beamed” people from Barcelona to London. However, it also raises concerns about the heightened risk of deception and crime, especially in the areas of sexual harassment and identity theft. Just like how you will be able to craft your avatar’s appearance however way you please, (OMG gurl, blue skin really brings out your eyes!) there will be virtually (pun unintended) nothing you can do from stopping a hacker with all your personal information from generating and posing as you in avatar form.

So do the pros of this promising new technology outweigh the cons? Or vice versa? You tell us.

Will it allow us to better align our true selves to our online alter egos? Or will we instead be compromising our information and our privacy? Will it allow us to connect better with our world and our community? Or rather will we be, as in Sherry Turkle’s Ted talk, more “connected, but alone?”

We want to know what you think. In the meantime, for prepatory purposes, I’ll be painting myself blue.

The Avengers, the Internet, and YOU

Captain America is yelling at a frisbee

Photo Source: Andy Roth (CC:BY)

Last weekend, superhero movie “The Avengers” grossed $207, 438, 708 (via BoxOffice Mojo).

If you’re like me, and have yet to see this movie, don’t worry. The premise is simple: a bunch of regular folks with alter egos come together and are forced to co-exist for the greater good. Awesome. Except… wait a second. This sounds a little too familiar. Not in a hey-isn’t-this-like-every-other-superhero-movie-in-existence? kind of way, but in a hey-isn’t-this-what-I-do-everyday??  kind of way. See, when we participate on the Internet, we accomplish exactly what the premise of “the Avengers” offers: a bunch of regular folks (check) with alter egos (check) coming together (check,) forced to co-exist for the greater good (check).

Again, I haven’t seen “The Avengers,” but based on what I know of superhero movies, one of the larger plot points always concerns the contradiction of the superhero’s regular-day identity and his/her superhero identity. For us, this is also a growing concern; it’s inevitable that our true selves will creep into our online alter egos. Which raises the question of the Guardian’s Aleks Krotoski, “which is more important, “authenticity, or anonymity?” Suleika Jaouad of NYTimes Blogs believes that “”in a world of social media, [where] we are our own self-portraitists…there’s a liberation in the type of public honesty you can engage in on social mediawriting. ”

But how much authenticity is too much? Do we want to reveal all that we are on the internet? With the rise in demand for online verification services such as the MiiCard, with the aim tor help you prove “I am who I say I am” and control your own digital identity, it is clear that too much authenticity/personal information can give an adversary the tools to disarm us (see Superman; kryptonite.)

But then, what of anonymity? Do we want our online presence to be that much different from our true selves? Are we ready to back up the things we do under pseudonyms, should our masks come off? Defamatory statements, even posted under fake names, are not protected as free speech. $13.8 million dollars was recently won by Mark and Rhonda Lesher in a case against “masked” internet trolls.

And though the Password Protection Act of 2012 is being introduced in order to better ensure your privacy in banning employers from demanding their employees’ Facebook passwords, there is no harm in being a mindful and careful online citizen. So get informed! Learn how to protect yourself, connect with others, publish your work, and work on your professional appearance in a safe and responsible way.

As Uncle Ben once told Spiderman, “with great power comes great responsibility.” No words could be truer in our digital age today.

London 2012 O(ffline)lympics

Photo Source: David K.K.

The Olympics are a magical time. Those of us lucky enough to have been in the city during the Vancouver 2010 Olympics know this as fact. There are truly no words to describe this event. But if you’re in London for this year’s Summer Olympics and are hoping to capture a few pictures that say the thousand words you can’t find to account for your experiences, and then share them, say, with your 800 Facebook friends, you may run into some difficulty.

According to this article, the rules for Olympic-goers are pretty clear: There is to be no social sharing of any photos or videos taken at the Games. Yes, that means Facebook/Twitter/Instagram//Flickr/YouTube…even Google+! In other words, what happens in London, stays in London. Or at least, stays off the Internet.

The very bottom of an extensive Ticketholders Terms and Conditions states: “Images, video and sound recordings of the Games taken by a Ticket Holder cannot be used for any purpose other than for private and domestic purposes and a Ticket Holder may not license, broadcast or publish video and/or sound recordings, including on social networking websites and the internet more generally, and may not exploit images, video and/or sound recordings for commercial purposes under any circumstances, whether on the internet or otherwise, or make them available to third parties for commercial purposes.”

And according to this report, security guards have already been trained to deter professional photographers. So yes, they are very serious about this. Which brings up the very obvious question of implementation: other than brash security guards, how exactly are they going to be able to monitor this? History tells us that despite prohibition, prohibited activity never truly ceases. What more, over an uncontrolled medium such as the Internet? And in the free-for-all Internet that we have come to know and love today, is this kind of prohibition a violation of our rights to connect as we please and publish what is ours? Has control over what is posted on the Internet grown beyond our reach?

What do you think? Leave your comments below.

One thing’s for sure, if we lived life according to this popular internet meme, then the London 2012 Summer Olympics would be as existent as the Canucks’ Cup run this year (hey, at least I can make jokes about it now.)

 

Steve Dotto discusses our Digital Tattoo project

Steve Dotto produces and hosts the podcast Dotto Tech, a weekly discussion of all things technology related. Last week, he sat down with Trish Rosseel and Cindy Underhill, creators of the Digital Tattoo project, to discuss how everyone – students, professors and teachers, and others – can learn and benefit from the Digital Tattoo website. Steve Dotto perfectly sums up the project: “Everything that we do [on the Internet] is as indelibly linked to us as though we did a physical tattoo. And we should think about it along those lines.”

We all have different styles and comfort levels with online tools and applications. The purpose of the Digital Tattoo project is to raise awareness about the broader implications for how we use these tools. At the same time, it’s not about scaring people or offering black-and-white, right-or-wrong judgements. As Dotto points, this is an important distinction. The online tools themselves are value neutral – neither good, nor bad. It’s all in how we use them. “So bottom lines is,” he says, “the only people who can protect our privacy are ourselves.”

One group mentioned as having a particular interest in Digital Tattoo as of late are teachers and students training to be teachers. As Trish Rosseel points out, for those “who are going to be going out and working with students and are trying to navigate that online relationship between themselves and their students, [especially] when they are still themselves students” a discussion about our Digital Tattoo can be valuable. Dotto points out that in British Columbia, every level of education is having a similar conversation: How do we protect our teachers while recognizing that the online world is far too rich of a place not to be somehow engaged with students.

The complete show is available here, which also includes an interesting discussion of what happens to our digital identities after we die. To just listen to the interview with the Digital Tattoo creators, have a listen here. Do you agree with the discussion? Feel free to post comments and/or questions.

Teens understand and care about privacy

There tends to be a widespread narrative that persists about teenagers when it comes to their online habits. It goes something like: Teens don’t care about their privacy online. Web giants like Google and Facebook, market research surveys, and a brief glimpse of some social networks suggest teens share information online frequently, without thought or reservation.

It’s a story that persists partly because, for companies also in the business of sharing people’s online data, the narrative that teens don’t care about their own privacy is a convenient one. Google CEO Eric Schmidt has dismissed the importance of privacy outright: “If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place”. Facebook president Mark Zuckerberg has described a new social norm where sharing more information openly with more people is expected. A market research survey of teens finds only 41% say they are concerned about privacy and security issues when using a mobile phone. And how else to explain sites like Dailybooth, where teens continuously snap digital self-portraits to post online – a real-time stream of faces for anyone to see?

However, as an excellent paper by danah boyd and Alice Marwick makes clear, this narrative that teens do not care about their privacy is a simplistic myth. It just isn’t true.

The draft of the article, “Social Privacy in Networked Publics: Teens’ Attitudes, Practices, and Strategies”, recently released for comment on boyd’s blog Zephoria, is a compilation of ethnographic fieldwork from 2006 through 2010. Just like Hanging Out, Messing Around, and Geeking Out, boyd and Marwick’s article quotes teens in high school or who have recently dropped out. Along with the analysis by the authors, the voices of the teenagers from 20 states across the U.S. are excellent to read and hear. They’re honest. They’re smart. They’re often funny: “[My mother, on Facebook] tends to comment on everything. I’m like go away. … Everyone kind of disappears after the mom post. … And it’s just uncool having your mom all over your wall, that’s just lame.”

Right off the bat, the authors point out a truth known to anyone who’s grown up in the suburbs: IRL, few spaces or opportunities exist for teens to socialize with each other on a large scale. Too young to gather in bars, not enough ends to hang out in restaurants, surrounded by “No Loitering” signs – it’s small wonder that networked, online publics are now a core part of teen culture.

Privacy is a complicated term. As one teen defines it in the article, privacy is “for someone to respect what you do.” And there’s a paradox that boyd and Marwick highlight: Adults may worry that teens don’t care about privacy when it comes to their online activities. At the same time though, there is a belief – from parents, schools, the police – that teens are not entitled to a right of privacy in their social spaces or in their online activities.

The article goes on to describe strategies teens employ to gain some measure of privacy and control over the flow of their information. Some, like examples of social steganography, are really fascinating. “Teens want to participate in networked publics, but they also want to have control over the social situations that take place there” boyd and Marwick conclude. “They want to be visible, but only to certain people. They want to be recognized and validated, but only by certain people. This is not a contradictory stance; it parallels how people have always engaged in public spaces.”

For anyone interested in issues surrounding privacy and youth online, the article is worth a read.

Online network education for kids – Doctorow style

Cory Doctorow talks about kids, privacy and social networks

In a recent TEDx presentation, the Canadian blogger and science fiction author, Cory Doctorow, proposes a new type of “network education” for kids online. His views stand in contrast to those suggesting that filtering internet content in an effort to keep kids safe is the way to go. Rather, he argues that filtering content prevents kids from understanding networks and privacy tools on their own – kind of like how feeding ducks in a pond leaves them unprepared to fend for themselves come winter.

Instead, here’s how Doctorow envisions privacy education for kids:

  • Turn to libraries, schools and other institutions to be “islands of networked privacy best practices”
  • Teach kids to encrypt everything they do on the internet
  • Teach them to jailbreak every device that they handle
  • Teach kids to choose the best products for their privacy
  • Teach them to bust every sensor wall that harvests a record of what they look at
  • Teach them to spoof every form they’re asked to fill in
  • Block the RFID tags they carry around with them
  • Figure out how to move through their cities and towns without their locations being recorded by CCTV cameras

Who should be responsible – parents or teachers – for teaching kids about their digital footprints and how should it be done, are important questions. Perhaps, now it’s not a question of who should be responsible but who is willing to take responsibility.

Facebook Now Adding a Secure Connection

Big news in Facebook security settings. And it’s positive!

Last week, Facebook announced they will offer users a more secure connection – encrypted HTTPS protocol instead of HTTP protocol. Similar to the type of secure connection you have when you do online banking, this protocol prevents others from capturing your “cookie” and accessing your account when you use an open wireless network at a coffeeshop, library or other public place. Here’s what it looks like:

It’s a good idea to enable this secure connection – especially if you are using an unsecured wifi network when you log on to Facebook. To select this option, go to “Account Settings”, select “Account Security”, then check the box for “Secure Browsing”. Facebook will be rolling this feature out to all users over the next few weeks. If you don’t see it available now, check back soon.

Posting from home gets workers fired

Social Networking has expanded the reach of employee/employer relations.

Two workers at a BC car dealership were recently terminated for making abusive and defamatory comments about their boss on their Facebook pages while outside of work.

Yahoo.ca noted that the employee’s boss caught wind of the comments through the extended networks of the Facebook friends of each of the recently released. Read the story here.

It is always wise not to post anything defamatory or over-personal on Facebook. In the event that you can’t resist, however, at the very least check your privacy settings so that extended networks can’t read what you thought was a conversation between friends.