PRIVACY - Facebook: Should You Opt Out or In?

Case 5-B

Facebook: Should You Opt Out or In?

Micro Issues

There is a publicly held opinion that the information that is shared on Facebook is public and, unless your own personal privacy settings dictate, can be accessed and shared by various people. This presents somewhat of a conundrum: people’s desire to share their information and also their desire to conceal it.  For journalists the ethical question still remains, is accessing people’s information from their Facebook accounts OK? Taking into regard the current culture and society that we live in, I would say yes – even to access information about a private citizen. The Internet just makes it so easy. And arguably, the person gave “permission” by inputting the information in the first place. So, if it’s there, a journalist has the right to access it. Guidelines should be used to keep the journalist from sharing information that is not pertinent to their story. For example, if they are reporting on a crime committed an individual, they should not share information gathered from the person’s Facebook about the birth of a new child or of a family member’s birthday or any other non-related information.

When it comes to specifically selling the personal information of Facebook users to third-party advertisers there should be very strict guidelines in place. I am uncomfortable with the idea of “target marketing”. I am also uncomfortable with the idea of Facebook selling my name, age, college degree level and other types of personal information to some unknown company in order for that company to pedal merchandise to me. It seems sleazy – an unhonest way to “get to know your audience”. I am all for advertising, as I see recognize it’s role in the American economy. But I am against these deals – these information deals. As a consumer, it violates my trust of the social media site and the product that is being promoted.

Overall, there has to be some level of good practice procedures implemented into the gathering and/or sharing of private information on Facebook. Otherwise, Nissanbaum’s theory of privacy being the “control of the flow of information” would be rendered inaccurate as we as a society are moving toward having no control over that flow – hence, no private. And a society without privacy is not an ethically sound body. Whether journalist, communication professional or fellow private citizen, privacy controls should be upheld.

Midrange Issues

Deciding ownership is one of the most difficult ethical decisions of our time, usually because there is more then one party involved with the creation of a thing. The ethical dilemma: Deciding whether Facebook (company) owns the contented “created” on it’or if ownership belongs to the Facebook user who made it. The stakeholders: (1) Facebook: They have the right to own all of the content created on their site. (2) Facebook “friends”: They have the right to share information shared with them thru the site. (3) Facebook user: They have the right to ownership of the content they shared or created on the site. Actions and Consequences: (1) If Facebook has sole ownership of the content created on it’s site, it would be able to sell whatever information is obtains from it users without the user’s permission or fear of repercussions from legal oversight. This may cause the corporation to greatly increase its profit margins buy selling consumer information more readily. It may also deter new users from acquiring a Facebook account and decrease it’s usage overall. (2) If Facebook “friends” could own the information shared on the site, it would not likely cause much controversy amongst private citizens, but it may affect businesses and larger entities. They may limit their usage of Facebook and seek alternative marketing resources. (3) If the Facebook user has sole ownership of the information he/she has shared on Facebook it may cause the corporation to seek alternative revenue sources and might cause Facebook to start to charge users for opening an account.

It is not ethically sound to vet a job candidate based on their Facebook or Twitter account. The difference between requiring a drug test for job candidates and screening a social media account is that a social media account is a personal expression tool that allows users to share tidbits of their personal lives with others and using drugs is against the law. It can be reasoned that a person who tests positive on a drug test is in violation of most company policies and is not in an emotionally responsible state fitting for a the position.

Once you sign up from a social media account it seems you’re trapped. Your information is now available for anyone to access with one simple Google search. It would be nice to be able to delete yourself from social media accounts. But that option doesn’t truly exist.  Though you can “deactivate” a Facebook account, your information is saved and your account can be activated again by merely signing in. Yes, it should be an option to complete removed yourself (information included) from social media.

Though there is an ethical distinction between how Facebook connects you with friends by using your information and with how Facebook shares that same information with third parties, there isn’t a big one. Facebook users know what high school they graduated from, and the year they graduated. If they want to find old friends, they can search for them on the site. It’s just as much of a violation for Facebook to “suggest” users for you to friend as it is for Facebook to sell your zip code and job title to third party advertisers.

Macro Issues

Critiquing the notion that Facebook should operate on an opt-in basis for privacy sharing using the utilitarianism stance would suggest that all users should agree with Facebook’s privacy policy or all should be opposed to it, but that opting-in or out on an individual basis isn’t an accurate way to determine privacy needs or regulations.  This stance also suggests that whatever Facebook’s decision on privacy is, is “rightly ordered” and has taken into consideration the satisfaction of the majority of its users when making it’s determination. The one flaw with this argument is that corporations don’t consider the wellbeing of individuals when making business decisions. Corporations make decisions based on what’s financial and legally beneficial for their company – not the community as a whole.

I’m not sure if a governmental organization should regulate all social networking activity. Regulation should possibly start with the social media companies themselves. They should create regulatory departments if they desire to help monitor their site for stalking, bullying and the like.

There are a lot of ethical issues that can arise if the government starts to archive information posted on social media sites. The government may chose to “lose” some posts, they may start to regulate certain sites based off the information they are collecting and overall censorship of free speech may start to arise.

The problem with open-sourced ethics as it related to Facebook’s evolving privacy policy is that is does not protect the person who’s information is being shared. Open-source only benefits the buyer and seller of the information when it concerns privacy. The intention of the Facebook user is to share information with a select group of people, not with an unknown third party. Essentially, the user has to make the decision between recreationally using the site and sharing their private personal facts with strangers. That doesn’t seem like a fair exchange. Open-source makes it OK for the exchange that Facebook makes with its users (information for site access) to be sold in another exchange with the user having little to no information about the second-hand exchange of their personal data.