Twitter, privacy, and informational self-determination

UPDATE: Tweetdeck does, in fact, tell you whether someone’s updates are protected if you click on the user name and view his or her profile. It does not however do this at a glance.

If you’re not listening from the CBC‘s Search Engine podcast, shame on you. It’s a kick ass show that looks at technology and culture, globally, but with an emphasis on Canada and the United States.

Episode 25, “CCTVs, biometrics, and self-destructing data,” is particularly good. It’s an interview with Canada’s information and privacy commissioner, Ann Cavoukian about online privacy and using a combination of technology, law, and ethics to protect citizen and customer data.

What stood out for me was this point made by Cavoukian (at about the 6:30 mark):

Your ability to control the information you have shared with others and their subsequent control of that — that’s when everything falls apart. You may be able to restrict the information to five people. But what you can’t do is — you have no ability to control what they do with your information. And that’s when things get weakened in terms of the weakest link of the chain, in terms of security.

I have run into this a few times with my Twitter friends. I have a private feed, largely to keep it from being Googled. I understand that “private” online is not really private — and despite my propensity to overshare, there are some things I just won’t tweet. Yet I am still uncomfortable when items in my feed are retweeted, or captured in a screen shot and reposted. My feed is protected, dang it! If I wanted my content to be Googled or re-contextualized, I would have blogged it or published to my public stream.

As J.Brotherlove pointed out in a (protected) Twitter posting, however:

I see your tweet re: your issue with SNS. this isn’t new though. we’ve had this issue with email.

I’ll argue, though, that email (and instant messaging for that matter) are conceived of as a one-to-one conversation, rather than a one-to-many conversation. It’s true that you can copy-and-paste an IM or email into another medium. But our behavioral norm is that these messages should not be re-shared without explicit permission. It’s the same from a technical standpoint, yes, but not a social one.

When it comes to tweets, Facebook data, or Flickr photos, however? As a community, we clearly have different expectations for privacy on social network sites. As thatblackchick put it (in a protected Tweet):

The nature of social networking means that it’s a one-to-many conversation, therefore, the sharing rules are different (IMO)

And what’s compounding the problem? Jason says:

Twitter, however, and it’s tools, don’t value or promote privacy. I can’t tell by glancing at tweetdeck which people in my stream are private.

He isn’t entirely right. Twhirl differentiates between protected and unprotected feeds. Twitter does too, though design changes would make those differences clearer. [Jason corrects himself in the comments: "Twitter does value privacy. The lock icon is clearly seen on the site, protected tweets don't show up in RSS feeds, you can't deeplink to protected tweets and make them accessible to non-permissioned users." I DO think that some UI changes would make it clearer, however.]

The obvious answer to all of this, of course, is don’t tweet / post / publish that which you do not wish to be reshared. Still, I’d like a higher degree of informational self-determination and awareness on all sides.

I think Cavoukian and data privacy researchers are on to something with this idea that rules for data use are embedded in and travel with the data. Going forward, I would like to see tools, APIs and user interfaces that enable and encourage people to respect public/protected settings, or enable users to opt-out of certain privacy-eroding features.

Embedding data rules in Twitter posts (or Facebook pages, Flickr photos, etc.) may be technologically unfeasible if not overkill. But how about allowing users to make their posts unavailable to the API? How about interfaces (for desktop clients and the web) that alert users they are about to retweet an item from a protected twitter feed? How about letting users opt out of being retweeted? How about ultra-granular, per-tweet privacy controls (a la Plurk)?

None of those is perfect, of course, but they can encourage a culture in which people are more conscious of and respectful of other users’ controls.

Related here:

Related elsewhere

“Social Media is Here to Stay… Now What?” by danah boyd
“Getting Smarter About Twitter” by Jason Toney
“What is YOUR use for Twitter” at MrTweet
Podcast #26: how Spybots can fire you, and is “SmartData” personal DRM?
“Privacy by Design” by some smart Canadians
“How I use Twitter” by jbrotherlove
“Blogging With Split Personalities” by Sarah Dopp

http://intensedebate.com/people/misterjt misterjt

I think I misspoke lumping twitter the service with those who are using the API to make tools. Twitter does value privacy. The lock icon is clearly seen on the site, protected tweets don't show up in RSS feeds, you can't deeplink to protected tweets and make them accessible to non-permissioned users.

The applications however, don't value the protected users privacy over an individual users desire to not be private. And maybe rightly so. A re-tweet is simply copying text, right? There's nothing stopping me as an individual user from copying a private tweet and attributing it however I so like (or fabricating tweets for that matter and attributing them however I may like) so there's no reason why those applications should prevent my doing so automagically. By adding the RT or allowing me to add my own spin to that copy/paste, i've changed that tweet. I've repurposed it for my own purposes — like quoting from a book or song, I don't have to ask permission.

Or do I?
http://intensedebate.com/people/misterjt misterjt

I think I misspoke lumping twitter the service with those who are using the API to make tools. Twitter does value privacy. The lock icon is clearly seen on the site, protected tweets don't show up in RSS feeds, you can't deeplink to protected tweets and make them accessible to non-permissioned users.

The applications however, don't value the protected users privacy over an individual users desire to not be private. And maybe rightly so. A re-tweet is simply copying text, right? There's nothing stopping me as an individual user from copying a private tweet and attributing it however I so like (or fabricating tweets for that matter and attributing them however I may like) so there's no reason why those applications should prevent my doing so automagically. By adding the RT or allowing me to add my own spin to that copy/paste, i've changed that tweet. I've repurposed it for my own purposes — like quoting from a book or song, I don't have to ask permission.

Or do I?
http://twitter.com/ Vicki

I don't really understand people with protected Twitter accounts. I truly do not understand people who have a public blog and protected Twitter. That just makes no sense to me. It's your choice of course, but it seems so orthogonal to what Twitter is about.

And, as you point out, it's not easy to remember if someone's tweetstream is private (my reader doesn't remind me). Nor is it easy to tell if a given user cares if you retweet what he said ("I don't want my Twitters to be Googled" isn't necessarily equivalent to "Don't share this with anyone else.")

The model we seem to be building in Twitter is an open sharing model. Perhaps it's up to people to specifically sa "please don't share this" if they don't wantto participate in that model. Or… not to use Twitter.
http://twitter.com Vicki

I don't really understand people with protected Twitter accounts. I truly do not understand people who have a public blog and protected Twitter. That just makes no sense to me. It's your choice of course, but it seems so orthogonal to what Twitter is about.

And, as you point out, it's not easy to remember if someone's tweetstream is private (my reader doesn't remind me). Nor is it easy to tell if a given user cares if you retweet what he said ("I don't want my Twitters to be Googled" isn't necessarily equivalent to "Don't share this with anyone else.")

The model we seem to be building in Twitter is an open sharing model. Perhaps it's up to people to specifically sa "please don't share this" if they don't wantto participate in that model. Or… not to use Twitter.
http://intensedebate.com/people/cecily cecily

Vicki, I'm not sure how having a private Twitter feed and a public blog is at right angles to each other. Can you unpack that for me?

I think of social media as a conversation. My public Twitter feed is a conversation with the wider world, but my private twitter feed is a closed circle of friends/trusted acquaintances that I keep very close to my chest. Open Twitter, for me, is a lecture, or making my voice (barely) heard in a public square. My private feed is more like a cocktail party.

We make these distinctions in our real lives, so it seems natural to me that this kind of behaviour would carry over into (some of) our online lives.
http://intensedebate.com/people/cecily cecily

Vicki, I'm not sure how having a private Twitter feed and a public blog is at right angles to each other. Can you unpack that for me?

I think of social media as a conversation. My public Twitter feed is a conversation with the wider world, but my private twitter feed is a closed circle of friends/trusted acquaintances that I keep very close to my chest. Open Twitter, for me, is a lecture, or making my voice (barely) heard in a public square. My private feed is more like a cocktail party.

We make these distinctions in our real lives, so it seems natural to me that this kind of behaviour would carry over into (some of) our online lives.
http://intensedebate.com/people/tiffanybbrown tiffanybbrown

Perhaps you do though. Adding RT doesn't change the fact that you've just copied and pasted. That's my intellectual property you're messing with dude. But really, it's a courtesy thing.
http://intensedebate.com/people/tiffanybbrown tiffanybbrown

Perhaps you do though. Adding RT doesn't change the fact that you've just copied and pasted. That's my intellectual property you're messing with dude. But really, it's a courtesy thing.
http://intensedebate.com/people/tiffanybbrown tiffanybbrown

Vicki, it's about how I use Twitter versus how I use my blog. I don't use my blog as a diary. I am also not looking to build audience for my Twitter stream.

Let's be clear: Twitter IS NOT a community. It is a messaging platform.

Some people also use it as a community. I choose to use it as a one-to-many-but-not-the-whole-world messaging platform. "I don't want my Twitters to be Googled" IS EXACTLY THE SAME as "Don't share with anyone else." By resharing a protected tweet as a public tweet, you have made it Google-able and undermined the whole point of a protected Twitter feed.

I also disagree that we are building an open sharing model. I'd say that close to half of my Twitter friends — who are my real life friends — have protected feeds. I also have a very good sense of who is public and private in my Twitter family. That's the benefit of keeping a small circle.

But to counter your argument, how about CHECKING whether a person is private or DM-ing them to see if they mind being retweeted before clicking the retweet button?
http://intensedebate.com/people/tiffanybbrown tiffanybbrown

Vicki, it's about how I use Twitter versus how I use my blog. I don't use my blog as a diary. I am also not looking to build audience for my Twitter stream.

Let's be clear: Twitter IS NOT a community. It is a messaging platform.

Some people also use it as a community. I choose to use it as a one-to-many-but-not-the-whole-world messaging platform. "I don't want my Twitters to be Googled" IS EXACTLY THE SAME as "Don't share with anyone else." By resharing a protected tweet as a public tweet, you have made it Google-able and undermined the whole point of a protected Twitter feed.

I also disagree that we are building an open sharing model. I'd say that close to half of my Twitter friends — who are my real life friends — have protected feeds. I also have a very good sense of who is public and private in my Twitter family. That's the benefit of keeping a small circle.

But to counter your argument, how about CHECKING whether a person is private or DM-ing them to see if they mind being retweeted before clicking the retweet button?
http://intensedebate.com/people/jbrotherlove jbrotherlove

The explosion of social media communication is keeping technology on its toes with regards to privacy. Like you Tiffany, my biggest reason for having a protected Twitter account is Google. And frankly, I wish all social networks would block search bots from crawling member information. Or at least give users the option not to have their info crawled.

Vicki's confusion over private accounts is one I hear often. But a blog and Twitter are not the same tool. It makes perfect sense to me that a different tool has different uses.

@misterjt Your last paragraph contains the magic question. It's not so different a struggle that artists of every genre are having with their work. And while I wouldn't equate any of my "tweets" as art, they are content I create. Is it not reasonable to think I "own" them in some respect? Where is the line of "fair use" and who decides?

I often post screenshots of my favorite tweets and I always obscure the usernames of those who are private. But is that enough? Should I not post them at all? I'm pretty sure I'm not as diligent with retweets. It's a head scratcher for sure.
http://intensedebate.com/people/jbrotherlove jbrotherlove

The explosion of social media communication is keeping technology on its toes with regards to privacy. Like you Tiffany, my biggest reason for having a protected Twitter account is Google. And frankly, I wish all social networks would block search bots from crawling member information. Or at least give users the option not to have their info crawled.

Vicki's confusion over private accounts is one I hear often. But a blog and Twitter are not the same tool. It makes perfect sense to me that a different tool has different uses.

@misterjt Your last paragraph contains the magic question. It's not so different a struggle that artists of every genre are having with their work. And while I wouldn't equate any of my "tweets" as art, they are content I create. Is it not reasonable to think I "own" them in some respect? Where is the line of "fair use" and who decides?

I often post screenshots of my favorite tweets and I always obscure the usernames of those who are private. But is that enough? Should I not post them at all? I'm pretty sure I'm not as diligent with retweets. It's a head scratcher for sure.
http://twitter.com/vlb Vicki

I don't have any argument with the way you use Twitter. You said "My public Twitter feed is a conversation with the wider world, but my private twitter feed is a closed circle of friends/trusted acquaintances that I keep very close to my chest." That means you aren't open on the web and have a blog but your Twitter is closed. You're not one of the people who confuses me.

Tiffany said "I have a private feed, largely to keep from being Googled." But if you're on the web – especially if you have a blog – you're Googled.

When someone says "Here I am, on the web, I write a blog but you can't read my Twitter stream" I ask "why not?" I accept your argument as your opinion but I still don't really understand it. From my viewpoint, you're online or you're not.
http://twitter.com/vlb Vicki

I don't have any argument with the way you use Twitter. You said "My public Twitter feed is a conversation with the wider world, but my private twitter feed is a closed circle of friends/trusted acquaintances that I keep very close to my chest." That means you aren't open on the web and have a blog but your Twitter is closed. You're not one of the people who confuses me.

Tiffany said "I have a private feed, largely to keep from being Googled." But if you're on the web – especially if you have a blog – you're Googled.

When someone says "Here I am, on the web, I write a blog but you can't read my Twitter stream" I ask "why not?" I accept your argument as your opinion but I still don't really understand it. From my viewpoint, you're online or you're not.
http://twitter.com/vlb Vicki

> Let's be clear: Twitter IS NOT a community. It is a messaging platform.

Nope. Twitter is many things. It's different things to different people. It was originally designed as a quick way to post status over SMS.

And even if I agreed with you, I'd still be confused as to why you have a blog (a messaging platform) which can readily be Googled and where comments are accepted but your Twitter messaging platform is private. Still makes no sense to me.

That's what Facebook is for. "Facebook is for people you used to know. Twitter is for people you want to know better."

> "I don't want my Twitters to be Googled" IS EXACTLY THE SAME as "Don't share with anyone else."
I'm afraid it's not. You'd like to believe it is and want to hope it is but neither the techynology nor your followers necessarily support that.

> "By resharing a protected tweet as a public tweet, you have made it Google-able and undermined the whole point of a protected Twitter feed."
"Not Googleable" is _your_ reason for not having a public Twitter feed. I would hazard a guess that there are nearly as many reasons as there are "private" Twitter feeds.

As in everything else, we'll have to agree to disagree.
http://twitter.com/vlb Vicki

> Let's be clear: Twitter IS NOT a community. It is a messaging platform.

Nope. Twitter is many things. It's different things to different people. It was originally designed as a quick way to post status over SMS.

And even if I agreed with you, I'd still be confused as to why you have a blog (a messaging platform) which can readily be Googled and where comments are accepted but your Twitter messaging platform is private. Still makes no sense to me.

That's what Facebook is for. "Facebook is for people you used to know. Twitter is for people you want to know better."

> "I don't want my Twitters to be Googled" IS EXACTLY THE SAME as "Don't share with anyone else."
I'm afraid it's not. You'd like to believe it is and want to hope it is but neither the techynology nor your followers necessarily support that.

> "By resharing a protected tweet as a public tweet, you have made it Google-able and undermined the whole point of a protected Twitter feed."
"Not Googleable" is _your_ reason for not having a public Twitter feed. I would hazard a guess that there are nearly as many reasons as there are "private" Twitter feeds.

As in everything else, we'll have to agree to disagree.
http://intensedebate.com/people/misterjt misterjt

I think Vicki points out the larger problem — unlike other messaging platforms, technologies, or services, we don't come into twitter with the same understanding of what it is and, unlike most other communications tools (online or not), we haven't been socialized in the "right" ways to use them.

If twitter is a virtual town square, we have to deal with the many different ways people use a town square — some come to shout, some to meet up with friends, some to browse, some to watch, and some to whisper in the back. As with the town square, there's the opportunity for unintended consequences. Even if you try to be private, you can't prevent someone from overhearing your conversation. Even if your voice is loud, you can't prevent someone from pelting you with tomatoes.

You enter the space, you take the risk. I'm not sure the tool — which works because of it's simplicity — can or should come up with privacy models that go against human nature.

We like to gossip.
http://intensedebate.com/people/misterjt misterjt

I think Vicki points out the larger problem — unlike other messaging platforms, technologies, or services, we don't come into twitter with the same understanding of what it is and, unlike most other communications tools (online or not), we haven't been socialized in the "right" ways to use them.

If twitter is a virtual town square, we have to deal with the many different ways people use a town square — some come to shout, some to meet up with friends, some to browse, some to watch, and some to whisper in the back. As with the town square, there's the opportunity for unintended consequences. Even if you try to be private, you can't prevent someone from overhearing your conversation. Even if your voice is loud, you can't prevent someone from pelting you with tomatoes.

You enter the space, you take the risk. I'm not sure the tool — which works because of it's simplicity — can or should come up with privacy models that go against human nature.

We like to gossip.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/misterjt misterjt

I think Vicki points out the larger problem — unlike other messaging platforms, technologies, or services, we don't come into twitter with the same understanding of what it is and, unlike most other communications tools (online or not), we haven't been socialized in the "right" ways to use it.

If twitter is a virtual town square, we have to deal with the many different ways people use a town square — some come to shout, some to meet up with friends, some to browse, some to watch, and some to whisper in the back. As with the town square, there's the opportunity for unintended consequences. Even if you try to be private, you can't prevent someone from overhearing your conversation. Even if your voice is loud, you can't prevent someone from pelting you with tomatoes.

You enter the space, you take the risk. I'm not sure the tool — which works because of it's simplicity — can or should come up with privacy models that go against human nature.

We like to gossip.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/misterjt misterjt

I think Vicki points out the larger problem — unlike other messaging platforms, technologies, or services, we don't come into twitter with the same understanding of what it is and, unlike most other communications tools (online or not), we haven't been socialized in the "right" ways to use it.

If twitter is a virtual town square, we have to deal with the many different ways people use a town square — some come to shout, some to meet up with friends, some to browse, some to watch, and some to whisper in the back. As with the town square, there's the opportunity for unintended consequences. Even if you try to be private, you can't prevent someone from overhearing your conversation. Even if your voice is loud, you can't prevent someone from pelting you with tomatoes.

You enter the space, you take the risk. I'm not sure the tool — which works because of it's simplicity — can or should come up with privacy models that go against human nature.

We like to gossip.
http://intensedebate.com/people/tiffanybbrown tiffanybbrown

This isn't a Twitter-specific problem JT. It exists with every online service. Sharing a private Flickr photo is no different. Being public on Facebook doesn't keep me from having private photos. And yet we expect our privacy / protection to be respected on Facebook or Flickr, but not Twitter?

Again: because I understand the possibility of being screen grabbed or retweeted, there is some stuff that just won't EVER make it to Twitter. But to say that we need to be "socialized" to use Twitter and not Facebook — a site that encourages interaction with strangers by having groups, events, and more granular content controls — is bullshit. You have to ask permission to follow a protected Twitter feed, after all. How is that not the same as saying "I only want certain people to see this" (which I usually phrase as "keeping it out of Google")?
http://intensedebate.com/people/tiffanybbrown tiffanybbrown

This isn't a Twitter-specific problem JT. It exists with every online service. Sharing a private Flickr photo is no different. Being public on Facebook doesn't keep me from having private photos. And yet we expect our privacy / protection to be respected on Facebook or Flickr, but not Twitter?

Again: because I understand the possibility of being screen grabbed or retweeted, there is some stuff that just won't EVER make it to Twitter. But to say that we need to be "socialized" to use Twitter and not Facebook — a site that encourages interaction with strangers by having groups, events, and more granular content controls — is bullshit. You have to ask permission to follow a protected Twitter feed, after all. How is that not the same as saying "I only want certain people to see this" (which I usually phrase as "keeping it out of Google")?
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/tiffanybbrown tiffanybbrown

This isn't a Twitter-specific problem JT. It exists with every online service. Sharing a private Flickr photo is no different. Being public on Facebook doesn't keep me from having private photos. And yet we expect our privacy / protection to be respected on Facebook or Flickr, but not Twitter?

Again: because I understand the possibility of being screen grabbed or retweeted, there is some stuff that just won't EVER make it to Twitter. But to say that we need to be "socialized" to use Twitter and not Facebook — a site which, UNLIKE TWITTER, encourages interaction with strangers by having groups, events, and more granular content controls — is bullshit. You have to ask permission to follow a protected Twitter feed, after all. How is that not the same as saying "I only want certain people to see this" (which I usually phrase as "keeping it out of Google")?
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/tiffanybbrown tiffanybbrown

This isn't a Twitter-specific problem JT. It exists with every online service. Sharing a private Flickr photo is no different. Being public on Facebook doesn't keep me from having private photos. And yet we expect our privacy / protection to be respected on Facebook or Flickr, but not Twitter?

Again: because I understand the possibility of being screen grabbed or retweeted, there is some stuff that just won't EVER make it to Twitter. But to say that we need to be "socialized" to use Twitter and not Facebook — a site which, UNLIKE TWITTER, encourages interaction with strangers by having groups, events, and more granular content controls — is bullshit. You have to ask permission to follow a protected Twitter feed, after all. How is that not the same as saying "I only want certain people to see this" (which I usually phrase as "keeping it out of Google")?
http://intensedebate.com/people/cecily cecily

It's like the question I asked you yesterday. How did we go from asking people whether it's OK to share information to just assuming because it's out there — protected or no — that it's fair game? I know my journalism school bias is showing here, but I'm just as guilty as anyone else. We should always ask if it's OK. But on the flip side, we should also always assume our conversations are on the record, regardless of the space where that conversation occurs. Text and screengrabs just makes it easier to disseminate that information to a wider audience in a way that you can't do with secrets transmitted across telephone lines.
http://intensedebate.com/people/cecily cecily

It's like the question I asked you yesterday. How did we go from asking people whether it's OK to share information to just assuming because it's out there — protected or no — that it's fair game? I know my journalism school bias is showing here, but I'm just as guilty as anyone else. We should always ask if it's OK. But on the flip side, we should also always assume our conversations are on the record, regardless of the space where that conversation occurs. Text and screengrabs just makes it easier to disseminate that information to a wider audience in a way that you can't do with secrets transmitted across telephone lines.
http://intensedebate.com/people/tiffanybbrown tiffanybbrown

Of course the answer is "be careful what you post." You can only control what you do. But I also believe that technology designers can encourage a privacy-aware culture. A user interface can remind people that resharing is not always caring, or that private online is not the same as private offline. Screen grabs will still be possible, of course, but that doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't expect people to think about how others might want their data to be used, no?
http://intensedebate.com/people/tiffanybbrown tiffanybbrown

Of course the answer is "be careful what you post." You can only control what you do. But I also believe that technology designers can encourage a privacy-aware culture. A user interface can remind people that resharing is not always caring, or that private online is not the same as private offline. Screen grabs will still be possible, of course, but that doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't expect people to think about how others might want their data to be used, no?
http://intensedebate.com/people/jbrotherlove jbrotherlove

I'd agree, there are no official online rules. And considering the medium, it's too late to create them and expect adherence. It boils down to a user's interpretation and respect of what "privacy" means on each service. This is why the "ask permission" aspect of following a protected Twitter account breaks down.

I can rant about how unfair this is until I'm blue in the face. But it doesn't stop the person next to me from repeating, remixing and reinterpreting what I said or did.

People use "private" and copyrighted Flickr photos all the time. And the number of Facebook horror stories seems to grow daily (due to, perhaps, a sense of privacy many feel when using that service).

We are rapidly approaching a point where if you don't want something reproduced, you shouldn't produce it. And this isn't only relegated to online activity.
http://intensedebate.com/people/jbrotherlove jbrotherlove

I'd agree, there are no official online rules. And considering the medium, it's too late to create them and expect adherence. It boils down to a user's interpretation and respect of what "privacy" means on each service. This is why the "ask permission" aspect of following a protected Twitter account breaks down.

I can rant about how unfair this is until I'm blue in the face. But it doesn't stop the person next to me from repeating, remixing and reinterpreting what I said or did.

People use "private" and copyrighted Flickr photos all the time. And the number of Facebook horror stories seems to grow daily (due to, perhaps, a sense of privacy many feel when using that service).

We are rapidly approaching a point where if you don't want something reproduced, you shouldn't produce it. And this isn't only relegated to online activity.
http://intensedebate.com/people/tiffanybbrown tiffanybbrown

It's the "in public" debate all over again. If I publish a photo of you kissing your secret boyfriend in Central Park and your husband finds out, whose fault is that? Me for snapping and disseminating the photo or you for making out with your secret boyfriend in a public space? What if it's in a restaurant? That's a privately-owned, but not necessarily private space, though it is a public accomodation. Are online privacy controls analagous to these or not?
http://intensedebate.com/people/tiffanybbrown tiffanybbrown

It's the "in public" debate all over again. If I publish a photo of you kissing your secret boyfriend in Central Park and your husband finds out, whose fault is that? Me for snapping and disseminating the photo or you for making out with your secret boyfriend in a public space? What if it's in a restaurant? That's a privately-owned, but not necessarily private space, though it is a public accomodation. Are online privacy controls analagous to these or not?
http://intensedebate.com/people/tiffanybbrown tiffanybbrown

the follow up to this is in Search Engine's 26th episode about self destructing data and remote data control. If it's my photo, should I still get to control it if it's on your computer? The technology is or may be coming. It's fascinating stuff.
http://intensedebate.com/people/tiffanybbrown tiffanybbrown

the follow up to this is in Search Engine's 26th episode about self destructing data and remote data control. If it's my photo, should I still get to control it if it's on your computer? The technology is or may be coming. It's fascinating stuff.
http://intensedebate.com/people/cecily cecily

A user interface can remind people all day long, but I don't know if an animated pop-up dialogue in a web interface is enough to truly effect behaviour. I think Jason is on to something about this being learned and how we — parents, teachers, society as a whole — needs to step up and make sure that people truly understand the implications of using these tools to organize our lives.
http://intensedebate.com/people/cecily cecily

A user interface can remind people all day long, but I don't know if an animated pop-up dialogue in a web interface is enough to truly effect behaviour. I think Jason is on to something about this being learned and how we — parents, teachers, society as a whole — needs to step up and make sure that people truly understand the implications of using these tools to organize our lives.
http://intensedebate.com/people/cecily cecily

I think in most cases the analogy holds up, but again, why is it my responsibility to help you retain your good reputation? I would do it within my power because I'm your friend, but what's my incentive for not doing it to someone else? Fear of karmic retribution? A feeling of collective responsibility?

Besides, secret boyfriends are so last year. It's all about disclosure, baby!
http://intensedebate.com/people/cecily cecily

I think in most cases the analogy holds up, but again, why is it my responsibility to help you retain your good reputation? I would do it within my power because I'm your friend, but what's my incentive for not doing it to someone else? Fear of karmic retribution? A feeling of collective responsibility?

Besides, secret boyfriends are so last year. It's all about disclosure, baby!
http://intensedebate.com/people/cecily cecily

This is where I draw the line. No one should have control over my personal property. I don't think of tweets as personal property. I barely even think of them as content. But I take issue to someone being able to zap a photo from my hard drive without my permission.
http://intensedebate.com/people/cecily cecily

This is where I draw the line. No one should have control over my personal property. I don't think of tweets as personal property. I barely even think of them as content. But I take issue to someone being able to zap a photo from my hard drive without my permission.
http://consumerpop.typepad.com/popconsumer Maria Niles

This is a fascinating discussion you've kicked off, tiffany. And I particularly like this point you made: "they can encourage a culture in which people are more conscious of and respectful of other users’ controls."

I do try and be cognizant of retweeting or how I respond to private feeds. As a matter of fact it was responding to one of your private tweets that made me aware. I totally get and respect your reasons for feed privacy and don't feel it is my place to share that information in my public feed even indirectly. I look for and respect the lock and I try my best to not share information private tweets (which can happen in the way you respond not just from reproducing the content) just as I would not share from a private email or IM. But that's just me and I don't expect it from others so I tend to follow the old "if you wouldn't want to see it on the front page of the New York Times" rule or what jbrotherlove said: "We are rapidly approaching a point where if you don't want something reproduced, you shouldn't produce it. And this isn't only relegated to online activity."
http://consumerpop.typepad.com/popconsumer Maria Niles

This is a fascinating discussion you've kicked off, tiffany. And I particularly like this point you made: "they can encourage a culture in which people are more conscious of and respectful of other users’ controls."

I do try and be cognizant of retweeting or how I respond to private feeds. As a matter of fact it was responding to one of your private tweets that made me aware. I totally get and respect your reasons for feed privacy and don't feel it is my place to share that information in my public feed even indirectly. I look for and respect the lock and I try my best to not share information private tweets (which can happen in the way you respond not just from reproducing the content) just as I would not share from a private email or IM. But that's just me and I don't expect it from others so I tend to follow the old "if you wouldn't want to see it on the front page of the New York Times" rule or what jbrotherlove said: "We are rapidly approaching a point where if you don't want something reproduced, you shouldn't produce it. And this isn't only relegated to online activity."
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/tiffanybbrown tiffanybbrown

Vicki, it's about how I use Twitter versus how I use my blog. I don't use my blog as a diary. I am also not looking to build audience for my Twitter stream.

Let's be clear: Twitter IS NOT a community. It is a messaging platform.

Some people also use it as a community. I choose to use it as a one-to-many-but-not-the-whole-world messaging platform. "I don't want my Twitters to be Googled" IS EXACTLY THE SAME as "Don't share with anyone else." By resharing a protected tweet as a public tweet, you have made it Google-able and undermined the whole point of a protected Twitter feed.

I also disagree that we are building an open sharing model. I'd say that close to half of my Twitter friends — who are my real life friends — have protected feeds. I know a few people who maintain two separate feeds, one public one private. And because I keep a small circle, I have a very good sense of who is public and private in my Twitter family. If I am not sure, I take the time to CHECK before I retweet, unless it's specifies in the tweet that it should be or may be reshared.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/tiffanybbrown tiffanybbrown

Vicki, it's about how I use Twitter versus how I use my blog. I don't use my blog as a diary. I am also not looking to build audience for my Twitter stream.

Let's be clear: Twitter IS NOT a community. It is a messaging platform.

Some people also use it as a community. I choose to use it as a one-to-many-but-not-the-whole-world messaging platform. "I don't want my Twitters to be Googled" IS EXACTLY THE SAME as "Don't share with anyone else." By resharing a protected tweet as a public tweet, you have made it Google-able and undermined the whole point of a protected Twitter feed.

I also disagree that we are building an open sharing model. I'd say that close to half of my Twitter friends — who are my real life friends — have protected feeds. I know a few people who maintain two separate feeds, one public one private. And because I keep a small circle, I have a very good sense of who is public and private in my Twitter family. If I am not sure, I take the time to CHECK before I retweet, unless it's specifies in the tweet that it should be or may be reshared.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/tiffanybbrown tiffanybbrown

As I mentioned above: I have a private feed to keep my feed from being Googled. I've had this blog for years. Being Google-able as a person is not my issue. Having a space for stuff that isn't Google-able is my issue.

Whether we're talking about Twitter or Facebook it's really the same debate. Just as someone can re-tweet from Tweetdeck, I can take a screen grab of your Facebook or "private" LiveJournal page, I can copy and paste text, or I can save a "private" image to my desktop. You can right-click "protected" images in Flickr, save them, and repost.

My focus is on Twitter because that is the only place online where I post protected content. But the service is not the problem. We are the problem. I am re-raising an issue that has been around since ARAPNET: just because you CAN reshare doesn't mean you should reshare.

As I said, I don't post much that would mortify me. But I am raising the point because I want us all to think about these issues.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/tiffanybbrown tiffanybbrown

As I mentioned above: I have a private feed to keep my feed from being Googled. I've had this blog for years. Being Google-able as a person is not my issue. Having a space for stuff that isn't Google-able is my issue.

Whether we're talking about Twitter or Facebook it's really the same debate. Just as someone can re-tweet from Tweetdeck, I can take a screen grab of your Facebook or "private" LiveJournal page, I can copy and paste text, or I can save a "private" image to my desktop. You can right-click "protected" images in Flickr, save them, and repost.

My focus is on Twitter because that is the only place online where I post protected content. But the service is not the problem. We are the problem. I am re-raising an issue that has been around since ARAPNET: just because you CAN reshare doesn't mean you should reshare.

As I said, I don't post much that would mortify me. But I am raising the point because I want us all to think about these issues.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/tiffanybbrown tiffanybbrown

I have a private feed to keep my feed from being Googled. Sorry that wasn't clear. EDITED to add: Actually, I have the same model that Cecily does: a public blog, a private Twitter feed, two public Twitter feeds, and a public Friendfeed. With the exception of two people, the people I follow on Twitter I have either met in person, or got to know well in another online community first.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/misterjt misterjt

oh, I think we need to be socialized for all of it. Our parents teach us proper phone etiquette. We learn naturally the proper ways to behave in physical spaces. Who knows the rules online and, in particular, on social networks. It's a challenge my teacher friends have to deal with constantly and there isn't much out there to help them. It's a challenge personally at work where everything I do is kid-focused and the concept of privacy is completely lost on them but is of paramount importance to their parents — even if they don't quite understand it in the online context.

The problem, though, is that most people don't think about online privacy like you do. The natural ways in which people use these tools makes them not think about the larger impacts for themselves or others. I'd argue that if that was, in fact, put front and center for people to have to consider with every interaction with these services or as part of the registration process, it would become a huge barrier of entry for them. Hell, myspace and facebook both have robust privacy tools now and I'd bet good money that the overwhelming majority of users don't take advantage. And that they don't take advantage isn't really hurting them.

Blissful ignorance and easy points of entry often go hand in hand and, ultimately, the makers of these tools/services are trying to gain the most usage possible.

And, frankly, I think that over-sharers don't get to have their cake and eat it, too. If you want to say some wild shit online, own it, or do it anonymously. When did the responsibility of protecting your reputation move from the individual to the tools? Hell, when phones were first in wide use, you could just sit on the open bell line and eavesdrop. People knew it and talked anyway. It's the risk you take sometimes so protect your own neck.

And that last paragraph sounds way more harsh than I intended My rhetoric is robust today.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/tiffanybbrown tiffanybbrown

I have a private feed to keep my feed from being Googled. Sorry that wasn't clear. EDITED to add: Actually, I have the same model that Cecily does: a public blog, a private Twitter feed, two public Twitter feeds, and a public Friendfeed. With the exception of two people, the people I follow on Twitter I have either met in person, or got to know well in another online community first.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/misterjt misterjt

oh, I think we need to be socialized for all of it. Our parents teach us proper phone etiquette. We learn naturally the proper ways to behave in physical spaces. Who knows the rules online and, in particular, on social networks. It's a challenge my teacher friends have to deal with constantly and there isn't much out there to help them. It's a challenge personally at work where everything I do is kid-focused and the concept of privacy is completely lost on them but is of paramount importance to their parents — even if they don't quite understand it in the online context.

The problem, though, is that most people don't think about online privacy like you do. The natural ways in which people use these tools makes them not think about the larger impacts for themselves or others. I'd argue that if that was, in fact, put front and center for people to have to consider with every interaction with these services or as part of the registration process, it would become a huge barrier of entry for them. Hell, myspace and facebook both have robust privacy tools now and I'd bet good money that the overwhelming majority of users don't take advantage. And that they don't take advantage isn't really hurting them.

Blissful ignorance and easy points of entry often go hand in hand and, ultimately, the makers of these tools/services are trying to gain the most usage possible.

And, frankly, I think that over-sharers don't get to have their cake and eat it, too. If you want to say some wild shit online, own it, or do it anonymously. When did the responsibility of protecting your reputation move from the individual to the tools? Hell, when phones were first in wide use, you could just sit on the open bell line and eavesdrop. People knew it and talked anyway. It's the risk you take sometimes so protect your own neck.

And that last paragraph sounds way more harsh than I intended My rhetoric is robust today.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/tiffanybbrown tiffanybbrown

But that photo is my intellectual property which you are using without permission. I see both sides, quite frankly, though I have far more problems with a person having access to my hard drive than I do with having my content used w/o permission.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/tiffanybbrown tiffanybbrown

But that photo is my intellectual property which you are using without permission. I see both sides, quite frankly, though I have far more problems with a person having access to my hard drive than I do with having my content used w/o permission.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/tiffanybbrown tiffanybbrown

by "remind," i don't necessarily mean "impede." flickr, for example, has a little yellow icon that says "this photo is private." it's one way to say "hey, it's posted here, but this person doesn't want the whole world to see it. please respect that." does that prevent me from ripping it? not one bit. does it stop me though? yes.

we have behavioral norms around email discussion lists right? it's an etiquette breach to resend a message to non-members in many communities. why not around SNS? in both cases, it's one-to-many, or limited-group interaction.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/tiffanybbrown tiffanybbrown

by "remind," i don't necessarily mean "impede." flickr, for example, has a little yellow icon that says "this photo is private." it's one way to say "hey, it's posted here, but this person doesn't want the whole world to see it. please respect that." does that prevent me from ripping it? not one bit. does it stop me though? yes.

we have behavioral norms around email discussion lists right? it's an etiquette breach to resend a message to non-members in many communities. why not around SNS? in both cases, it's one-to-many, or limited-group interaction.
http://intensedebate.com/people/misterjt misterjt

Let's also remember that much of flickr's toolset came not out of a desire to protect privacy but out of a desire to protect usage rights and then — post-yahoo deal — out of a desire to moderate the community and provide the "safest" space for the widest ranges of users. The family and friends settings help with moderation. The creative commons integration helps with licensing. And, flickr users often alter the usage of the "privacy" settings. Teens and college students who actually have a sense of modesty, often use the family setting for "friends" and keep their most salacious photos, and even then, I think it's less a concern about re-use or re-appearing elsewhere. It's about wanting to share their flickr account with their parents without fear of the drunk party pics accidentally showing up in that space.

Flickr does a pretty good job in both spaces though but I think the concept of photos as IP is much stronger than treating conversational text as such. Nobody thinks about licensing in regards to individual tweets.
http://intensedebate.com/people/misterjt misterjt

Let's also remember that much of flickr's toolset came not out of a desire to protect privacy but out of a desire to protect usage rights and then — post-yahoo deal — out of a desire to moderate the community and provide the "safest" space for the widest ranges of users. The family and friends settings help with moderation. The creative commons integration helps with licensing. And, flickr users often alter the usage of the "privacy" settings. Teens and college students who actually have a sense of modesty, often use the family setting for "friends" and keep their most salacious photos, and even then, I think it's less a concern about re-use or re-appearing elsewhere. It's about wanting to share their flickr account with their parents without fear of the drunk party pics accidentally showing up in that space.

Flickr does a pretty good job in both spaces though but I think the concept of photos as IP is much stronger than treating conversational text as such. Nobody thinks about licensing in regards to individual tweets.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/tiffanybbrown tiffanybbrown

"I would do it within my power because I'm your friend, but what's my incentive for not doing it to someone else?"

I think that's the key here. You probably don't have access to protected items if you're not a in person's online network — a friend to some degree. So what real world relationships are you damaging by resharing? And are you okay with that? Will you still be okay with that if it happened to you? (And I don't mean you, specifically.)
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/tiffanybbrown tiffanybbrown

"I would do it within my power because I'm your friend, but what's my incentive for not doing it to someone else?"

I think that's the key here. You probably don't have access to protected items if you're not a in person's online network — a friend to some degree. So what real world relationships are you damaging by resharing? And are you okay with that? Will you still be okay with that if it happened to you? (And I don't mean you, specifically.)
http://intensedebate.com/people/cecily cecily

It has happened to me, what with some of the photos of me at SXSW that have been posted recently. Once I got over the initial feelings of discomfort, I came to terms with the fact that my friends and I live online lives, and that my friends didn't mean any harm by posting those photos.

(I know you didn't mean me specifically, but I felt the anecdote applied here.)

Would I be OK with it? I would hope that the person who took offence (CDN spelling) would have the stones to step up and say why they were offended and give me the opportunity to make amends. That's how friendships should work, although I know they often don't.

It seems to me that there's a real disconnect between personal relationships, the seemingly impersonal nature of the tools we're using to foster and document these relationships, and the rules of behaviour we should follow.
http://intensedebate.com/people/cecily cecily

It has happened to me, what with some of the photos of me at SXSW that have been posted recently. Once I got over the initial feelings of discomfort, I came to terms with the fact that my friends and I live online lives, and that my friends didn't mean any harm by posting those photos.

(I know you didn't mean me specifically, but I felt the anecdote applied here.)

Would I be OK with it? I would hope that the person who took offence (CDN spelling) would have the stones to step up and say why they were offended and give me the opportunity to make amends. That's how friendships should work, although I know they often don't.

It seems to me that there's a real disconnect between personal relationships, the seemingly impersonal nature of the tools we're using to foster and document these relationships, and the rules of behaviour we should follow.
http://intensedebate.com/people/cecily cecily

It has happened to me, what with some of the photos of me at SXSW that have been posted recently. Once I got over the initial feelings of discomfort, I came to terms with the fact that my friends and I live online lives, and that my friends didn't mean any harm by posting those photos.

(I know you didn't mean me specifically, but I felt the anecdote applied here.)

Would I be OK with it? I would hope that the person who took offence (CDN spelling) would have the stones to step up and say why they were offended and give me the opportunity to make amends. That's how friendships should work, although I know they often don't.

It seems to me that there's a real disconnect between personal relationships, the seemingly impersonal nature of the tools we're using to foster and document these relationships, and the rules of behaviour we should follow.
http://intensedebate.com/people/cecily cecily

It has happened to me, what with some of the photos of me at SXSW that have been posted recently. Once I got over the initial feelings of discomfort, I came to terms with the fact that my friends and I live online lives, and that my friends didn't mean any harm by posting those photos.

(I know you didn't mean me specifically, but I felt the anecdote applied here.)

Would I be OK with it? I would hope that the person who took offence (CDN spelling) would have the stones to step up and say why they were offended and give me the opportunity to make amends. That's how friendships should work, although I know they often don't.

It seems to me that there's a real disconnect between personal relationships, the seemingly impersonal nature of the tools we're using to foster and document these relationships, and the rules of behaviour we should follow.
http://intensedebate.com/people/jbrotherlove jbrotherlove

We get it, Jason.
http://intensedebate.com/people/jbrotherlove jbrotherlove

We get it, Jason.
http://intensedebate.com/people/misterjt misterjt

Ha. It ain't my fault.
http://intensedebate.com/people/misterjt misterjt

Ha. It ain't my fault.
http://intensedebate.com/people/tiffanybbrown tiffanybbrown

There … now no one will ever know about the triplicate hiccup
http://intensedebate.com/people/tiffanybbrown tiffanybbrown

There … now no one will ever know about the triplicate hiccup

Tiffany B. Brown

a mish-mosh of stuff

Twitter, privacy, and informational self-determination

Related here:

Related elsewhere