Mark Zuckerberg created a website
that allows users to create a profile and share it online with other users. The
users enter their information, including their full name, address, pictures,
workplace, phone number, and birthday, and share this information online on their
profile page. The question is, how did Mark convinced them to do that? Publishing
this personal information is the only way to be recognized by friends online.
Once found, friends can send them friend requests. Other users may have different
reasons for using Facebook, but at the end of the day they all do what Mark
wanted them to do - share their personal information with him and the world. However,
in doing so, they are also sharing their personal preferences, what they like
and don’t like, and their online activities.
The main moral question in this case
is not related to Zuckerberg obtaining people’s data, because they agreed to
share it with him in the first place. The dilemma arises from what he does and
can do with their data after he gets it. It seems that after the data is stored
in Facebook’s servers, it is no longer the property of the user. From that
point on, Facebook owns the information. What does Mark do with that data?
Victor Luckerson (2014) published an article entitled, “7 Controversial ways
Facebook has used your data” on time.com. In this article, Luckerson pointed
out several controversial actions done by Facebook which harms the privacy of
their users. The first example that Luckerson provides is that Facebook keeps
the user’s data forever. As users, and owners of our own information, are we not
supposed to have full control of our Identity online and offline? In Facebook’s
Terms of Service, Statement of Rights and Responsibilities section, subsection
2, Sharing your Content and Information, it says, “When you delete
IP content, it is deleted in a manner similar to emptying the recycle bin on a
computer. However, you understand that removed content may persist in backup
copies for a reasonable period of time (but will not be available to others).” It
is interesting that they do not specify the period of time for which they will
keep your data.
The
second privacy issue is that Facebook uses the user’s behavior online to
advertise products. In Facebook’s Terms of Service, under sub-section number
nine, About Advertisements and Other Commercial Content Served or Enhanced by
Facebook, it says:
You give us permission to use your name, profile picture, content, and information
in connection with commercial, sponsored, or related content (such as a brand
you like) served or enhanced by us. This means, for example, that you permit a
business or other entity to pay us to display your name and/or profile picture
with your content or information, without any compensation to you. If you have
selected a specific audience for your content or information, we will respect
your choice when we use it.
In
the article, Luckerson talked about the issue of targeted advertisements, and
used the example of the “Sponsored Story” ad format in 2011, for which Facebook
faced a class action lawsuit. Luckerson states that Facebook was “using names
and pictures in ads for products they liked but not compensating them [the
users].” Is it morally acceptable to use someone’s picture and name to
advertise a product without asking for their authorization,
and if they agree do they not deserve to get paid for it? It seems unfair to
profit from another’s information without providing just compensation.
The
last controversial issue is tracking the user’s movements across the web.
According to Luckerson, Facebook tracks the websites that we visit for 90 days,
“whether you are logged into the service or not.” Luckerson also claims that they
use cookies to get data, such as the“time, date, URL, and… IP address whenever
you visit a website that has a Facebook plug-in, such as a ‘like’ button.” As
free citizens, we have a constitutional right of privacy. Facebook is potentially
invading that right. Does Facebook have the right to track their users just
because they accepted the agreement? It is particularly concerning that if a person
no longer wants to be a Facebook user because of this issue, canceling their account
may not be enough to stop Facebook from tracking their internet use considering they keep personal data.
I
assume that Zuckerberg’s point of view about these issues is that if you do not
like his terms, then do not use his website. Also, he would likely state that
it is the fault of anyone who was shocked or offended by the use of their data
because they did not read the agreement when they signed up and became Facebook
users. Most of the time, Facebook does not do anything illegal. When they do, such
as with the “Sponsored Story” ad format in 2011, Facebook’s reaction is to
apologize, pay the fine or settlement, and find another way around or come up
with a different idea that will allow them to make money off of the users’
information.
I
have a lot of respect for Mark Zuckerberg, but I disagree with him about the
way his company uses our data. I understand that he did not make Facebook to be
nice to people, but rather to profit from it. He should be more selective about
the way he uses Facebook to make money. The reason is that it is not ethical to
use someone’s privacy or propriety without their consent or just compensation. It
is even worse to use someone’s profiler and search history to advertise for
products. It is also immoral to keep former users’ information stored even
after they have stopped using Facebook.
Facebook
would be a better company if they traded some of their profit for the respect
of the privacy of their users because at the end of the day, they rely on their
users to be successful.
Privacy
is one of the foundations of our civilization. As Ayn Rand in her book “Capitalism:
the Unknown Idea” said, “Civilization is the
progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public,
ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free
from men.” Ayn used this quote to describe human relationships in the middle
ages, and how men were ruled by brutal force and human life was held to a cheap
price. Ayn thinks that what changed this situation was capitalism, which
introduced freedom. As a society and free humans, we need our privacy, and we also
need companies like Facebook to respect it. Privacy is extremely valuable.
When
looking at these problems from another angle, we can see that consent plays a
big role in this situation. It’s true that the users accepted the agreement when
they signed up for Facebook but this can’t be a sufficient reason to use that
information with no limit. In “Note for Philosophy” Locke stated that we are
obligated to obey political authorities by free and voluntary consent, just
because we reside in their territory. This part seams to support Facebook’s position
but Hanna Pitkin’s response to Locke’s theory by saying that consent is irrelevant
to his theory, because in order to obey the authority, the government has to be
adequately respects and protects our basic moral rights. Comparing Locke’s
theory to the Facebook situation, I would say that since we use Facebooks
website and save data in their servers (territory) then we have to obey to
their rules, but Hanna’s point of view which I personally supports, is that
Facebook has to earn our obeisance by respecting our right in the first place. Hanna
also said: that by residing within their territories, we give our consent even
to bad governments and we are not obligated to bad governments.
Sources:
http://philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu/faculty/rarneson/Courses/13Locketacitconsent.pdf (Thanks
No comments:
Post a Comment