NEWS
Facebook’s Zuckerberg Questions Privacy Expectations
Privacy is no longer a social norm, according to the founder of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg commenting on the rise of social networking
Mark Zuckerberg, the founder and chief executive of Facebook has said that people no longer have an expectation of privacy thanks to increasing uptake of social networking.
Speaking at the Crunchie Awards in San Francisco this weekend, the 25 year-old web entrepreneur said: “People have really gotten comfortable not only sharing more information and different kinds, but more openly and with more people.”
Zuckerberg went on to add that the rise of social media reflects the changing attitudes among the general public, saying that this radical change has happened in the space of five years.
“When I got started in my dorm room at Harvard, the question a lot of people asked was, ‘why would I want to put any information on the Internet at all? Why would I want to have a website?’,” he said.
“And then in the last 5 or 6 years, blogging has taken off in a huge way and all these different services that have people sharing all this information,” he said.
Facebook is estimated to have over 100 million users in the United States alone, and more than 350 million users worldwide. Zuckerberg’s comments come after the social networking giant recently decided to (somewhat controversially) change the privacy settings of all its users.
In December, Facebook launched a number of new tools which enabled users to control who sees what content on their account, as well as a Transition Tool and simplified privacy settings.
The issue of privacy is a vexed one, especially in the United Kingdom where, late last year, the Home Office pledged to push ahead with controversial plans to monitor all Internet use. The Ministry is requiring communications firms to monitor all Internet use, and is asking them to retain information on how people use social networks such as Facebook.
Yet the dangers posed by people opening up online to the rest of the world is well know. Back in August, a survey sponsored by British insurance firm Legal & General found that users of social networking sites were giving away vital information about themselves and their whereabouts that was being used by professional burglars to establish a list of targets. The report, “The Digital Criminal,” found that 38 percent of users of sites such as Facebook and Twitter have posted status updates detailing their holiday plans and a third of people have posted status updates saying that they are away for the weekend.
Zuckerberg also said it was important for companies such as Faceook, to reflect the changing social norms in order to remain relevant and competitive.
“A lot of companies would be trapped by the conventions and their legacies of what they’ve built,” he said. “Doing a privacy change for 350 million users is not the kind of thing that a lot of companies would do.
“But we viewed that as a really important thing, to always keep a beginner’s mind and what would we do if we were starting the company now and we decided that these would be the social norms now and we just went for it.”
Photo credit: (CC) Brian Solis, www.briansolis.com / bub.blicio.us / CC-BY
Articles on TechWeekEurope are available in Google Currents Subscribe now!
Loading ...
Last comment
25 replies to Facebook’s Zuckerberg Questions Privacy Expectations
Man, Zuckerberg has it completely wrong. His Company (Facebook) preys on those who do not understand the implications of putting their data online. The expectation of privacy is still there. It will always be there. He is just helping to try to push away from proper and secure privacy measures so that they can shirk their responsibilities to protect their users data. Zuckerberg, pull your head out of your ass. Hell, they are even working on redesigning the entire internet to make security something that is part of the internet, as opposed to tacked on later. Only an uneducated fool would believe the dribble coming out of his mouth. Privacy isn’t gone and the expectation of privacy isn’t gone, your just trying to kill it so that you can have better targetted ads as well as sell our data to the highest bidder… a jack-off is what he is trying to push his own personal agenda.
Zuckerberg – speak for youself. I enjoy my privacy
As a web developer I have been asked by friends whether it is possible to start a private version of “facebook”.
One where detectives cannot snoop around. One where only you or your friends could see what you put up.
A small implementation is running at http://loggingit.com — still a ways to go.
Cheers,
Stephan
Just because it has become policy for facebook to violate our privacy by “forcing” publicity does NOT mean it is normal.
Given Mark’s vast life experience I can see how he might come to that conclusion. This 25-year old kid’s perspective could fit on the point of a needle
“People have really gotten comfortable not only sharing more information and different kinds, but more openly and with more people.”
Certainly when put versus the wild and questionable internet at large, putting a little trust in a top-name responsibly-constructed social network makes some sense – but only when it’s NOT going to erode your privacy. Most outcries against the major Facebook upgrades have fundamentally been expressions of privacy concerns, and Mark is not unaware of this.
Privacy will always be a social norm. I’m not really sure where Mark is coming from, but here on earth, we enjoy being able to have the freedom to share what we want, when we want, and how we want to.
If this keeps up I might have to drop social networks altogether because I don’t like other people telling me what they think I should and should not share about myself because they feel self-righteous or self-entitled do so.
Keep your privacy standards to yourself, Mark.
How dare these people take it upon themselves to expose the private details of 350 million people. What kind of fallout will those people deal with. There are going to be real casualties here and Facebook has to be held accountable.
Because the copyright belong to FaceBook!
I choose to vote by not participating. Not a Facebook, Twitter, etc. member.
The allure of Facebook is to share items with friends and family. Most users do not realize that the world can see what they post. Most would prefer to limit who can see what. Unfortunately Facebook makes very hard and confusing to do.
So no, people have not given up on their expectation of privacy. They are using new forms to share information with people they know. It is only the lousy defaults provided by sites like Facebook that allow these posting to be public.
A bunch of bragging narcissists want to put every boring detail of their lives online and suddenly the rest of us loose our privacy? I don’t think so. This is just stupidity fueled by greedy idiots that can’t innovate anything beyond a useless web page.
We developed a secure web application (https://www.threadthat.com) that allows users to easily share information but protect their privacy through data encryption – yet there are few willing to embrace it. I think the majority of people don’t care about privacy because “privacy is not fun”.
Facebook was on its way to becoming profitable too. Zuckerberg may have shot himself in the foot by trying to think for his users. He has all those millions and millions of people eating up his service, he should have been thinking about how to capitalize on that, rather than offending those same users.
Adam @Advent Creative Web Design
I stopped posting photos on facebook because I’m worried someone can use them somewhere else….
Well, at least he’s laughing all the way to the bank – good for him. Alot of people go to Harvard and are currently unemployed at least he’s a bad ass entrepreneur!
Well. I like my privacy. And people who claim that they have nothing to hide have no brain either. You don’t have to be a criminal or a sinner to want to hide something. Humans prefer privacy.
Some people can rationalize anything to their benefit. It’s a sliding process, where you can start small and end up pretty low.. He will say anything if it suits his profit. The guy bullshits so much that he may be even believing it himself (as it often happens). Fuck this guy and fuck his facebook.
So why did Facebook blocked Web 2.0 Suicide Machine?
http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/49470
http://suicidemachine.org/
My guess is Suicide Machine deleted a bit too much by overwriting contentcs.
In any case, I ain’t touching that Facebook crap with a borrowed 10ft pole.
They’re not reflecting social norms, they’re trying to SHAPE social norms. They’re creating a society of people who willingly disclose their whereabouts and activities throughout the day much like a convict on parole would… AND THEY DON’T EVEN REALIZE HOW THEY’RE BEING MANIPULATED!! They willingly give up their freedoms because they really don’t know any better. Ignorance is bliss. If I didn’t know any better, I’d say that Mark Zuckerberg is nothing but a shill who is probably financially backed either by a large corporation or a government agency… the whole thing looks a little too convenient.
I tried to post a long comment here. The verification code was not correct. eweek proceeded to erase my comment and tell me the verficiation code was incorrect.
Thanks, eweek! Nice work at destroying people’s comments.
Facebook unleashes lawyers on Web 2.0 Suicide Machine
http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/53078
I’m sorry we didn’t get a chance to read your comment – and my thanks to all those of you who have fought through it our verification system to make comments.
It isn’t the best verification system, it’s true, but I’ve lost enough words on other sites to know that things aren’t perfect – I try to take a copy before I hit save.
And let me tell you a secret. The current verification system doesn’t even work that well, in terms of keeping out spam comments.
We’re hoping to improve it soon, so bear with us, and thanks for your patience.
Peter Judge
(and yes, it took me two attempts to post this response!)
The debate about “privacy” and networking is often misunderstood by confusing it with “security” and “identity”. With billions of users of networks for all types of networking from encrypted military systems, television systems, Internet systems and even brain interfaced wireless systems, the focus should be on “personal security”. This means being able to prevent or report electronic harassment, theft of data, identity theft, theft of financial assets, theft of IP and Trade Secrets, theft of your time and your name.
The only way this can be done is by Personal Identifying Information (PII). Usually, this is a combination of microprofiling, such as your GPS coordinates, your IP address, your phone number, email address, SSN and other information that all points back to you. Right now the only persons who have access to this information about you are the military subcontractors and telephone companies who own, operate and manage the networks for governments and companies. They are busy selling your information to advertisers and companies that pay them for your information, while refusing to turn over that same information to any Government agency or the people they collect the information about due to “privacy” laws. You are anonymous because the Governments are required by law to prevent your PII from identifying you in their records. What this means is that the only people who know who you are and where you are located are the ones who paid the telephone companies for your PII information. In other words, the advertisers know all about you and so do the companies that paid to steal your business secrets. If you complain to the FBI or Police, they have no idea who you are unless you are a criminal. They cannot force AT&T to turn over the records on you to substantiate your claims. You are who and what the thieves say you are and they can use you as an “anonymous source” without your permission or knowledge.
Think about this carefully in the EU. China has your information and can see everything you are doing with their satellites, yet you are blocking yourselves and the USA with backwards privacy laws from proving who you are in the event someone lies about you and your activities.
It is called “disinformation” and it is rampant in re-routing. In courts it is called hearsay. In society it is called “gossip”. Permanent records of everything about you and a clear identity of who you are will be critical to your reputation, your income and your life in the future. If they know all this about you, they also can track criminals this way. Think about it. Facebook is you, with your own words and posts for the whole world to see. You are who you say you are and not what thieves say you are.
“In the future, we will all die from hearsay”- Robin Lynn Ore
So is Mark really that naive? or spinning a rationalizing yarn? So young, too, to have sold out already!