Posts in Social media

Facebook Terms and policies

You have seen them if you are on Facebook, and perhaps even posted one yourself. I’m talking about the statements that aim to defuse Facebook’s new terms of service, which are claimed to take away copyright to stuff you post. To summarize it shortly, the virally spreading disclaimer is meaningless from legal point of view and contains several fundamental errors. But I think it is very good that people are getting aware of their intellectual rights and that new terms may be a threat. Terms of service? That stuff in legalese that most people just click away when starting to use a new service or app. What is it really about and could it be important? Let’s list some basic points about them. The terms of service or EULA (End User License Agreement) is a legally binding agreement between the service provider and the user. It’s basically a contract. Users typically agree to the contract by clicking a button or simply by using the service. These terms are dictated by the provider of the service and not negotiable. This is quite natural for services with a large number of users, negotiating individual contracts would not be feasible. Terms of service is a defensive tool for companies. One of their primary goals is to protect against lawsuits. These terms are dictated by one part and almost never read by the other part. Needless to say, this may result in terms that are quite unfavorable for us users. This was demonstrated in London a while ago. No, we have not collected any children yet. Another bad thing for us users is the lack of competition. There are many social networks, but only one Facebook. Opting out of the terms means quitting, and going to another service is not really an option if all your friends are on Facebook. Social media is by its nature monopolizing. The upside is that terms of service can’t change the law. The legislation provides a framework of consumer and privacy protection that can’t be broken with an agreement. Unreasonable terms, like paying with your firstborn child, are moot. But be aware that the law of your own country may not be applicable if the service is run from another country. Also be aware that these terms only affect your relationship to the provider of the service. Intelligence performed by authorities is a totally different thing and may break privacy promises given by the company, especially for services located in the US. The terms usually include a clause that grant the provider a license to do certain things with stuff the users upload. There’s a legitimate reason for this as the provider need to copy the data between servers and publish it in the agreed way. This Facebook debacle is really about the extent of these clauses. Ok, so what about Facebook’s new terms of service? Facebook claim they want to clarify the terms and make them easier to understand, which really isn't the full story. They have all the time been pretty intrusive regarding both privacy and intellectual property rights to your content, and the latest change is just one step on that path. Most of the recent stir is about people fearing that their photos etc. will be sold or utilized commercially in some other way. This is no doubt a valid concern with the new terms. Let’s first take a look at the importance of user content for Facebook. Many services, like newspapers, rely on user-provided content to an increasing extent. But Facebook is probably the ultimate example. All the content you see in Facebook is provided either by the users or by advertisers. None by Facebook itself. And their revenue is almost 8 billion US$ without creating any content themselves. Needless to say, the rights to use our content is important for them. What Facebook is doing now is ensuring that they have a solid legal base to build current and future business models on. But another thing of paramount importance to Facebook is the users' trust. This trust would be severely damaged if private photos start appearing in public advertisements. It would cause a significant change in peoples relationship with Facebook and decrease the volume of shared stuff, which is what Facebook lives on. This is why I am ready to believe Facebook when they promise to honor our privacy settings when utilizing user data. Let’s debunk two myths that are spread in the disclaimer. Facebook is *not* taking away the copyright to your stuff. Copyright is like ownership. What they do, and have done previously too, is to create a license that grant them rights to do certain things with your stuff. But you still own your data. The other myth is that a statement posted by users would have some kind of legal significance. No, it doesn’t. The terms of service are designed to be approved by using the service, anyone can opt to stop using Facebook and thus not be bound by the terms anymore. But the viral statements are just one-sided declarations that are in conflict with the mutually agreed contact. I’m not going to dig deeper into the changes as it would make this post long and boring. Instead I just link to an article with more info. But let’s share some numbers underlining why it is futile for ordinary mortals to even try to keep up with the terms. I browsed through Facebook’s set of terms just to find 10 different documents containing some kind of terms. And that’s just the stuff for ordinary users, I left out terms for advertisers, developers etc. Transferring the text from all these into MS Word gave 41 pages with a 10pt font, almost 18 000 words and about 108 000 characters. Quite a read! But the worst of all is that there’s no indication of which parts have changed. Anyone who still is surprised by the fact that users don’t read the terms? So it’s obvious that ordinary user really can’t keep up with terms like this. The most feasible way to deal with Facebook’s terms of service is to consider these 3 strategies and pick the one that suits you best. Keep using Facebook and don’t worry about how they make money with your data. Keep using Facebook but be mindful about what you upload. Use other services for content that might be valuable, like good photos or very private info. Quit Facebook. That’s really the only way to decline their terms of service. By the way, my strategy is number 2 in the above list, as I have explained in a previous post. That’s like ignoring the terms, expecting the worst possible treatment of your data and posting selectively with that in mind. One can always put valuable stuff on some other service and post a link in Facebook. So posting the viral disclaimer is futile, but I disagree with those who say it’s bad and it shouldn’t be done. It lacks legal significance but is an excellent way to raise awareness. Part of the problem with unbalanced terms is that nobody cares about them. A higher level of awareness will make people think before posting, put some pressure on providers to make the terms more balanced, and make the legislators more active, thus improving the legal framework that control these services. The legislation is by the way our most important defense line as it is created by a more neutral part. The legislator should, at least in theory, balance the companies’ and end users’ interests in a fair way.   Safe surfing, Micke   Image: Screenshot from

December 3, 2014
privacy settings twitter

When it comes to privacy, Twitter's simplicity has always been its key advantage. Your tweets are public or they are protected. Of course, this implicit agreement with users has never been that simple. "Protected" tweets turned out to be searchable -- they aren't anymore. And if one of your followers decides to share your tweets through a manual retweet or a screenshot, you're just as exposed as you would be if your tweets were public. But that's true of any form of digital -- or real world -- communication. Now, Twitter is getting even more complicated to become in hopes of becoming as mainstream as Facebook, which is trying to improve the revelancy of its feed in order to replace Twitter as the go-to online destination for monitoring breaking news. You may have noticed that Twitter's is slowly rolling out changes to its web experience that may alter the way people understand the service. Tweets that have been favorited but not retweeted by people you follow may show up in your stream. More changes like location-based alerts and native video will soon follow. The closer-to-original Twitter experience still exists -- and will likely always exist -- in apps like Tweetdeck. But no matter how you use the service, your activity on and off the site is being tracked to improve outcomes for advertisers. This makes sense. It is a business and since you're not paying to use this valuable service, you are its product -- even if you're using the site for business. By offering tools like its free analytics, the site is striving to make it clear how useful it is and build good will as it evolves. However, Twitter recognizes that its users just may want to avoid allowing more "big data" tentacles into our digital brains. Thus it allows you to opt out of some tracking and features that may feel invasive. Here's how to do that: Go to your "Security and privacy" section of your Settings. Scroll all the way down. If you're interested in maximum privacy, I recommend your uncheck the three boxes at the bottom of the page -- Discoverability, Personalization and Promoted Content -- then click "Save changes". While you're on this page, make sure you're taking advantage of Twitter's best security tool: Login verification. Turn on two-factor authentication by activating "Send login verification requests to my phone". Twitter's biggest security problem is that everyone in the world knows your login. Unless you turn on Login verification, all an intruder needs is your password. You may also want to make sure "Tweet location" is off and erase all of your previous locations, if you're worried about being tracked in the real world. One last thing while you're checking your settings, click on Apps. Then "Revoke access" of any you're not using. Not sure if you're not using an app? Get rid of it and you can always renew its access later. Cheers, Jason [Image courtesy of Rosaura Ochoa via Flickr.]

December 1, 2014
Lee Rigby

The sad killing of British soldier Lee Rigby has been in the headlines lately after release of a report about how authorities handled the case. Publicity was boosted because the committee thinks Facebook is responsible for the killing. They think the social media giant has a clear obligation to identify and report people who plan attacks like this. Just like the fact that phone companies report everybody who are talking about terrorism and the postal service sends a copy of all fishy letters to the Scotland Yard. I’m sure you get the sarcasm. What happened is that British agencies, MI5, MI6 and GCHQ, had identified the killers, Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale, as interesting persons before the attack. They did however fail to investigate properly and apparently made no attempts to get the suspects’ communications from Facebook. There would have been several ways for them to do that, by a direct request from the police to Facebook or by the secret intelligence connections between GCHQ and NSA. Meanwhile Facebook's internal controls had flagged the killers’ communications and automatically closed their accounts. Facebook did however never report this to the British agencies. Which gave the Brits a convenient scapegoat to focus on instead of the fact that they never asked for that data. Ok, so the Brits blame Facebook. Let’s take a closer look at some numbers and what they really are demanding. There’s about 1,6 billion users total on Facebook. 1,3 billion monthly active and about 860 million daily active users. These users share around 5 billion items and send over 10 billion messages every day. This creates a total stream of around 10 million items per hour and 173 000 per second. Quite a haystack to look for terrorists in! Facebook has some 8 300 employees. If every single one of them, Mark Zuckerberg included, would spend their full working day monitoring messages and shared items, they would have to do over 60 items per second to keep up. Needless to say, any kind of monitoring must be automated for volumes like this. Facebook is monitoring its content automatically. Some keywords and phrases trigger actions, which can lead to closure of accounts. This is understandable as no company want to be a safe haven for criminals and many kinds of harmful activities are prohibited in the user agreement. But Facebook is walking a thin line here. Their primary task is not to be a law enforcement agency but to provide a social media service. They must also be well aware of the fact that reporting innocent people to the authorities is highly irresponsible. Commonly accepted practices of justice are not obeyed anymore when dealing with potential security threats and there is no transparency. There are numerous cases where western authorities have detained and even tortured innocent persons, apparently based on some very vague indications. Maher Arar’s case is a well-known example. So the bar for reporting someone must be high. It is easy for an Internet service to throw out a suspected user. They are after all not paying anything and Facebook have no obligation to let them be users. This ensures compliance with the user terms, no criminal activities allowed. But the threshold to report someone is naturally a lot higher. Especially when the volume forces Facebook to make automated decisions. This is not a sign of carelessness from Facebook’s side, it’s because people by default are entitled to communication privacy. It is also a direct consequence of the fact that terrorism suspicions are handled outside the normal justice system in many western countries. You carry a heavy responsibility if you feed innocent peoples’ data into a system like that. Let’s face it. There’s a large number of criminal conversations going on right now both on Facebook and other social services. Many terrorists are also on the phone right now and some are picking up deliveries with items related to planned attacks. Nobody is expecting the phone company to routinely listen in to identify potential terrorists and nobody is expecting the post to check parcels randomly. Facebook may not report every flagged conversation, but they are at least doing something to not be a safe haven for terrorists. Still they are the only of these services that the Brits call a safe haven. Not very logical. The simple reason for this apparent inconsistency is naturally the need for a scapegoat. The British agencies failed to investigate so they need someone else to blame. But there is a more dangerous aspect hidden here as well. Snowden made us aware of the privacy threats on Internet. The wide-spread mass surveillance has so far to a large extent been secret and even illegal. Pandora’s Box is open now and authorities all over the world are racing to get legal rights to mass surveillance, before the large masses understand what it really would mean. Putting pressure on Facebook fits that agenda perfectly. To be fair, one can naturally also ask if Facebook could have done more. A calm and balanced debate about that is welcome and beneficial. The flagged messages is probably quite a haystack too. To what extent is Facebook reviewing those messages manually, and could this process be improved to catch more potential killers? And at the same time avoid reporting any innocent users. To illustrate that this isn’t as simple as many think. People are asking why Facebook didn’t react on stuff containing the phrase “let’s kill a soldier”. Well, this blog post contains it too. Am I a killer because of that? Should this post be flagged and given to MI5?   Safe surfing, Micke    

November 28, 2014
Facebook Headquarters

Social media is here to stay and it definitively changes our way to communicate. One new trend is the ability to communicate instantly without writing or saying anything. Good examples are Facebook’s Like-button and the indicators for what you are doing or feeling. Facebook’s Like-button is no doubt the most popular and important feature in this category. You really can’t be a Facebook user without getting in touch with it. But the big question is what you really mean by clicking Like? It sounds simple, but may be more complex than you think. You do not only express support for the post you like, it is also a social gesture towards the poster. You show that you have read the post and want to stay in touch. Another interesting question is how to deal with good posts about bad things. We see them almost daily. Someone is writing an excellent post about something that is very wrong. You really dislike the topic of the post even if you think it’s good that someone brings it up. You agree about something you dislike. Should you click Like? Does a like target the post or the topic of a post? There’s no generic rule for this and we all act differently. More activity, likes and comments, boost a post and makes it more visible. So it would make sense to like the post as we want to spread awareness about the problem. But it still feels wrong to like something that makes you feel sick. So that’s the poll question for today. How do you act when you see a good post about something bad? Do you click Like? [polldaddy poll=8445608]   Safe surfing, Micke  

November 13, 2014
Facebook archive

If you like sailing and tall ships, I can recommend this podcast about Pam Bitterman’s book Sailing to the far horizon. It’s a great story about the last years of the community-operated ship Sofia, covering both a lot of happy sailing and the ship’s sad end in the early eighties. But this is not about hippies on a ship, it’s about how we record and remember our lives. In the podcast Pam tells us how the book was made possible by her parents saving her letters home. Perhaps they had a hunch that this story will be written down one day. Going on to state that e-mails and phone calls wouldn’t have been saved that way. That’s a very interesting point that should make us think. At least it made me think about what we will remember about our lives in, say, twenty years? We collect more info about what we are doing than ever before. We shoot digital pictures all the time and post status updates on Facebook. We are telling the world where we are, what we are doing and what we feel. Maybe in a way that is shallower than letters home, but we sample our lives at a very granular rate. The real question is however how persistent this data is? If we later realize we have experienced something unique enough to write a book about, have our digital life left enough traces to support us? Pam wrote the book about Sofia some twenty years later. A twenty year old paper is still young, but that’s an eternity in the digital world. Will you still be on the same social media service? Do you still have the same account or have you lost it. Does the service even exist? And what about your e-mails, have you saved them? How are your digital photos archived? You may even have cleaned up yourself to fit everything into a cheaper cloud account. Here’s something to keep in mind about retaining your digital life. Realize the value of your personal records. You may fail to see the value in single Facebook posts, but they may still form a valuable wholeness. If you save it you can choose to use it or not in the future. If you lose it you have no choice. Make sure you don’t lose access to your mail, social media and cloud storage accounts. That would force you to start fresh, which usually means data loss. Always register a secondary mail address in the services. That will help you recover if you forget the password. Use a password manager to avoid losing the password in the first place. Redundancy is your friend. Do not store important data in a single location. The ideal strategy is to store your files both on a local computer and in a cloud account. It provides redundancy and also stores data in several geographically separated locations. Mail accounts have limited capacity and you can’t keep stuff forever. Don’t delete your correspondence. Check your mail client instead for a function that archives your mail to local storage. Check your social media service for a way to download a copy of your stuff. In Facebook you can currently find this function under Settings / General. It’s good to do this regularly, and you should at least do it if you plan to close your account and go elsewhere. Migrate your data when switching to a new computer or another cloud service. It might be tricky and take some time, but it is worth it. Do not see it as a great opportunity to start fresh and get rid of "old junk". If you are somewhat serious about digital photography, you should get familiar with DAM. That means Digital Asset Management. This book is a good start. Pam did not have a book in mind when she crossed the Pacific. But she was lucky and her parents helped her retain the memories. You will not be that lucky. Don’t expect your friends on Facebook to archive posts for you, you have to do it yourself. You may not think you’ll ever need the stuff, just like Pam couldn’t see the book coming when onboard Sofia. But you never know what plans the future has for you. When you least expect it, you might find yourself in a developing adventure. Make yourself a favor and don’t lose any digital memories. Safe surfing, Micke  

October 13, 2014
Ello not a product but feature

Most of us have some kind of relationship with Facebook. We either love it, hate it or ignore it. Some of us are hooked. Some have found new opportunities, and many have got themselves into a mess on Facebook. Some are worry-free and totally open while others are deeply concerned about privacy. But we probably all agree that Facebook has changed our lives or at least impacted our ways to communicate. Facebook has showed that social media is an important tool for both business and private affairs. Facebook was in the right place at the right time to become the de-facto standard for social media. But the success of Facebook is also what makes it scary. Imagine the power you have if you know everything about everyone in the civilized world. And on top of that with quite loose legislation about what you can do with that data. Ok, everything and everyone are exaggerations, but not too far from the truth. Others have tried to challenge Facebook, but no one has succeeded so far. One reason is that social media automatically is monopolizing. The most important selection criteria is where your friends are, and that drives everyone into one common service. The fact that even Google failed with Google+, despite their huge resources and a ready user base from services like Gmail, just underlines how solid Facebook’s position is. Ello is the latest challenger and they certainly have an interesting approach. Ello tries to hit Facebook straight in its weakest point and provide a service that respect user integrity. They may lack the resources of Google, but they can be credible in this area. The choice between Facebook and Google is like a rock and a hard place for the privacy minded, but Ello is different. Their manifesto says it all. Will Ello survive and will they be the David that finally defeats Goliath? Ello is in a very early phase and they certainly have a very long way to go. But remember that their success depends on you too. You may not be a product on Ello, but you are certainly a feature. The main feature, actually. The team can only provide a framework for our social interactions. But people to be social with is absolutely crucial for any social network. So Ello’s raise or fall is mostly in our hands now. They need enough pioneers to make it a vibrant society. The development team can make the service fail, but they can only create potential for success. Ello needs you to materialize that potential. So what’s my honest opinion about Ello? The fact that the service is based on privacy and integrity is good. We need a social media service like this. But there are also many open questions and dark clouds on Ello’s sky. People have complained about its usability. And yes, usability is quite weird in many ways. It’s also very obvious that Ello is too premature to be a tool for non-technical users. Now in October 2014, I would personally only invite people who are used to beta software. But both usability and the technical quality can be fixed, it just takes more work from the team. A bigger question mark is however the future business model of Ello. On Facebook you’re a product and that’s what pays for the “free” service. But how is Ello going to strike a balance between privacy and funding the operation? This is one of the big challenges. Another is if the privacy-promise really is enough? Many of us are already privacy-aware, but the vast majority is still quite clueless. What Ello needs is either a big increase in privacy awareness or something clever that Facebook doesn’t provide and can’t copy quickly. It may seem futile for a small startup to challenge Facebook. But keep in mind that Facebook was small too once in the beginning. Facebook showed us that we need social media. Perhaps Ello can show us that we need social media with integrity. But anyway, you are among those who decide Ello’s future by either signing up or ignoring it.   Safe surfing, @Micke-fi on Ello   Picture: screen capture

October 3, 2014
How to deal with defamation

Everybody probably agree that the net has developed a discussion culture very different from what we are used to in real life. The used adjectives vary form inspiring, free and unrestricted to crazy, sick and shocking. The (apparent) anonymity when discussing on-line leads to more open and frank opinions, which is both good and bad. It becomes especially bad when it turns into libel and hate speech. What do you think about this? Read on and let us know in the poll below. We do have laws to protect us against defamation. But the police still has a very varying ability to deal with crimes on the net. And the global nature of Internet makes investigations harder. Most cases are international, at least here in Europe where we to a large extent rely on US-based services. This is in the headlines right now here in Finland because of a recent case. The original coverage is in Finnish so I will give you a short summary in English. A journalist named Sari Helin blogged about equal rights for sexual minorities, and how children are very natural and doesn’t react anyway if a friend has two mothers, for example. This is a sensitive topic and, hardly surprising, she got a lot of negative feedback. Part of the feedback was clear defamation. Calling her a whore, among other nasty things. She considered it for a while and finally decided to report the case to the police, mainly because of Facebook comments. This is where the really interesting part begins. Recently the prosecutor released the decision about the case. They simply decided to drop it and not even try to investigate. The reason? Facebook is in US and it would be too much work contacting the authorities over there for this rather small crime. A separately interviewed police officer also stated that many of the requests that are sent abroad remain unanswered, probably for the same reason. This reflects the situation in Finland, but I guess there are a lot of other countries where the same could have happened. Is this OK? The resourcing argument is understandable. The authorities have plenty of more severe crimes to deal with. But accepting this means that law and reality drift even further apart. Something is illegal but everybody knows you will get away with the crime. That’s not good. Should we increase resourcing and work hard to make international investigations smoother? That’s really the only way to make the current laws enforceable. The other possible path is to alter our mindset about Internet discussions. If I write something pro-gay on the net, I know there’s a lot of people who dislike it and think bad things about me. Does it really change anything if some of these people write down their thoughts and comment on my writings? No, not really. But most people still feel insulted in cases like this. I think we slowly are getting used to the different discussion climate on the net. We realize that some kinds of writing will get negative feedback. We are prepared for that and can ignore libel without factual content. We value feedback from reputable persons, and anonymous submissions naturally have less significance. Pure emotional venting without factual content can just be ignored and is more shameful for the writer than for the object. Well, we are still far from that mindset, even if we are moving towards it. But which way should we go? Should we work hard to enforce the current law and prosecute anonymous defamers? Or should we adopt our mindset to the new discussion culture? The world is never black & white and there will naturally be development on both these fronts. But in which direction would you steer the development if you could decide? Now you have to pick the one you think is more important.   [polldaddy poll=8293148]   Looking forward to see what you think. The poll will be open for a while and is closed when we have enough data.   Safe surfing, Micke  

September 8, 2014
Connecting people

You have all seen the pictures circulating on the net. A bunch of people all tapping at their smartphones and paying no attention to the world around them. With the title: ANTISOCIAL. And you have probably also seen this is real life. Sometimes a friend just seems to be more interested in the phone than in you. And maybe it has been the other way around sometime? ;) Most of these people are probably using social media. I do agree that it is rude to ignore persons who are physically present and pay more attention to the phone. Especially if you are alone with someone. And yes, that behavior seems antisocial from other’s point of view. But the funny thing is really that social media and our mobile devices form the most social system invented so far. Think about it. You can be in contact with people everywhere in the world. You can send and receive messages instantly and follow what others do right now. You can share your own feelings spontaneously. You can have a pure peer-to-peer exchange of thoughts not curated by any outsiders. You can select to communicate with a single person or a larger group. You are not limited to written text, you can use pictures and video as well. The real point here is that those “antisocial” types aren’t just tapping their phones, they are communicating with real people. Our traditional definition for the word social was formed before we had Internet. People associate it with personal face-to-face contact and are slow to update their mindsets. Or to be precise, we already have a younger generation who have grown up with the net and social media services. Their definition is up to date, but many of us older persons still see the net as less social or not social at all. Let’s all agree to never call someone who is concentrating on the phone antisocial. But the word rude may be justified. Let’s also agree to not be rude against others by ignoring them in favor of the phone. It’s of course OK to check the phone now and then at the party, but always prioritize people who are present and want to talk to you. And why not take it one step further? Turn off the phone and try to be without it for a couple of hours. Can you do it? Next time you go out for dinner with someone is a good time for that experiment. You may be less social on the net for a while, but your company will see you as much more social.   Safe surfing, Micke   PS. If you must be able to take urgent calls and can’t turn off the phone, at least turn off the data connection. That will mute the social media apps.  

August 21, 2014