alyssagardina.com - privacy

Blizzard, privacy and personal security - would you use your real name online?

agardina — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 02:56:29 +0000

So here's my first confession: I'm a gamer girl. Not only that, but, as an undergrad, I researched and wrote a comprehensive paper on the "Use of Computer-Mediated Communication in Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games." What I'm saying is, I know the gaming space, and I'm pretty surprised by an announcement Blizzard made yesterday

From their forum post:

The first and most significant change is that in the near future, anyone posting or replying to a post on official Blizzard forums will be doing so using their Real ID -- that is, their real-life first and last name -- with the option to also display the name of their primary in-game character alongside it.

This is a frightening and, honestly, confusing proposition for many reasons:

Personal Security

My friend Mikey Il first pointed out the article to me, and we had an interesting discussion about personal security. On one side of the debate, there's the fact that we, as gamers and as Internet users, already put a ton of information out there about ourselves. On the other side, we choose to put that information out there. As a gamer, I chose a handle that doesn't have my name anywhere in it, and, in forums and in gameplay, I expect that level of anonymity.

As a Gamer Girl

Yes, I know, this is pretty much the same thing. But, as a girl who chose to use an actual girl character in gameplay, I have experience of what can happen - even before my actual name is out there. Raunchy dancing, awkward chat interactions and shocked audiences whenever you jump on voice chat - it comes with the territory. In forums, the same applies - if you choose to use a picture of yourself or publicize that you're a woman - watch out.

All things said, this atmosphere is expected. When you add in identifying information, especially for those of us with unique names, the awkward interactions can move from iffy in game to downright frightening.

Reputation Management

In the social space, your reputation is essentially whatever shows up on the first page of Google. Forum posts with your real name? Fair game. As one poster in the Blizzard forum points out:

People play this game for relaxation on their off time. But, for example, if you had a unique name and applied for a job and the potential employer googled your name and found posts on a gaming forum they may not hire you because they have ill conceved notions about gamers.

In my research on the interactions in the MMORPGs and their forums, there were trolls aplenty. But, like in every other forum, social network or blog comment thread out there - you take the good with the bad. Impeding on your users' basic expectations of privacy is unconscionable.

What do you think? Would you tie your full name to everything you do online?

Facebook Scam Applications Strike Again

agardina — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 15:58:03 +0000

You've got to wonder who, if anyone, is approving applications for distribution on Facebook. A far cry from Apple's "deny first, ask later" policy, Facebook seems to have allowed yet another spam application through.

The application is called Photo Comments, and it appears to be a reincarnation of Phetas, an application that made its rounds a few weeks back. Phetas has since been removed, and all notifications generated by the application deleted. Here's how Photo Comments works, and why Facebook needs to start weighing in:

Photo Comments goes viral by notifying you that one of your friends has "commented on a photo of you". The image in the notification looks exactly like Facebook's built-in photo application.
You click the notification and are directed to add the application Photo Comments. Don't, because if you do...
Facebook notifies your friends that you've commented on a photo of them, and the virus/scam spreads further.

Review of Photo Comments average one star, with users saying:

"this thing attacked me, linked to a bunch of adds and is purposefully trying to look like normal picture comments."
"This appears to be a bogus application - possibly virus?"

Facebook is losing a lot of ground. In the past month they have implemented new privacy policies that are as confusing as they are incomplete, and now they have approved (passively or actively) at least 2 spam applications that look and feel just like one of their native apps. Where are they going to go from here?

Update: While Photo Comments & Phetas have disappeared from Facebook's list of applications, as of 2/24, a new one has appeared. "Like", an application that uses graphic elements similar to Facebook's "Like" button, works in exactly the same way as the other spam applications. Interestingly enough, they also seem to have been developed by the same group of people. Caveat, Facebooker!

Unwilling Spokespeople: Using Celebrity Images for Commercial Gain

agardina — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 07:16:00 +0000

Times Square is quite possibly the Mecca of billboard advertising. Scrolling text, enormous video screens, and a steaming cup of Ramen noodles compete for attention in this New York City landmark. The new kid on the block is from Weatherproof, an outerwear company. It shows President Obama wearing a Weatherproof jacket during a trip to China a few months back:

Photo: New York Post/AP

According to the New York Post article, "Weatherproof did not seek permission from the White House, nor does it believe it was necessary to do so since the billboard does not say Obama endorses the product." That's not exactly true. (Comically, the company also says "We did this in good faith. This is an image that we thought would enhance the president of the United States." One has to believe that they're referring to their quality Photoshop work.)

The question of legality, White House policy and why New York Times wouldn't run this article but an outdoor ad company would comes down to something called the "Right of Publicity". According to the World Intellectural Property Organization, the Right of Publicity "recognizes that a person’s image has economic value that is presumed to be the result of the person’s own effort and it gives to each person the right to exploit their own image...every person, regardless of how famous, has a right to prevent unauthorized use of their name or image for commercial purposes."

Therefore, anyone, whether it be a celebrity, person on the street or President Obama, has the right to prevent their image from being used in any way "that implies an individual's endorsement of a product, provided that the public can identify the individual based upon the use." (Source)

This trend of using the President's, or anyone's, for that mattter, image for commercial gain without permission has to stop. Implied endorsement, particularly by a public figure, imposes on an individual's right to publicity - a fact that should be known by advertisers, corporations and the Associated Press (who sold the image).

What do you think? Does a public offical or celebrity have the inherent right to refuse to have their image used for another entity's commercial gain?

(Thanks to @LaurieShook for the heads up on the Occidental story!)

Facebook at a crossroads with media literacy

agardina — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 15:05:02 +0000

Facebook is somewhat infamous for its ever changing privacy policies. Facebook's inconsistent approach to privacy has made life difficult for professionals and students looking to monitor their online reputation. In addition, this social networking giant has found itself at a crossroads - moving forward with new features vs. the growing gap in media literacy in America.

A consequence of the digital divide, disparity in media literacy has become more evident as online advertising grows and social media networks expand. Due to a variety of factors, including age, economics, education and geographic location, a significant portion of America's population now has access to the Internet, but lacks the knowledge to ensure that their information remains private. This group is more susceptible to identity theft, fraud and the embarassment of information overshare on social networks.

A story on NPR this morning explores these concerns, which have been made newsworthy by a variety of privacy groups. These organizations have filed a complaint letter (PDF) with the FTC, asking the commission to explore Facebook's privacy settings & recommendations. The letter alleges:

"Facebook’s changes to users’ privacy settings disclose personal information to the public that was previously restricted. Facebook’s changes to users’ privacy settings also disclose personal information to third parties that was previously not available. These changes violate user expectations, diminish user privacy, and contradict Facebook’s own representations."

These claims have a dual impact. For social media denizens, it means that users must proactively review any or all of Facebook's privacy settings and keep abreast of new developments. Second, and perhaps more problematic, privacy organizations, Facebook and perhaps even the government must now look at how the failure to educate millions of Americans about the risks of online information sharing has impacted social networking. For each privacy setting that Facebook adds, more and more users are convinced to use their "recommended" privacy settings. These settings err on the side of sharing, not privacy, as Facebook is, at its core, a business. And the business of selling information is a very profitable one indeed.

Conclusion? Social networking is growing faster than most can handle. Facebook needs to become a more responsible online citizen and take several steps:

Create a recommended privacy profile that is more closed than open
Create informational videos and posts about each privacy update and not just provide general, nonspecific instructions
Become more open about deals with search engines, and provide such information in an easily digestible format

And it wouldn't be social media without expecting a contribution from the public. We must:

Take steps to learn more about privacy on all websites
Share information with our friends and family, many of whom may not have the time or inclination to take a proactive privacy stance
Know our online information privacy rights

What are your thoughts on Facebook's privacy settings? What steps must interested parties take to ensure fairness on all sides?