There are two sets of people who are looking forward to the prospect of
Facebook ‘Home’ on Android. One, of course, is the group of
teenage/young adults in the age range of 16 to 25, who not only partake
in the externalisation of their lives through the social network, but
also thrive on it.
The other is the Mumbai police department. The collision course of both
these groups, besides being a train wreck-in-waiting, is the reason why
Facebook Home is so troubling.
There is, of course, no doubt that ‘Home’ is the best thing Facebook
could have mustered, both from a business and technological standpoint.
Forking Android and producing a Facebook mobile OS would have been
time-consuming, and also perhaps out of the reach of Facebook’s
development team. On the other hand, another gimmick like the ‘Facebook
button’ on a mobile phone would have only hurt the company’s chances.
An insidious wrapper
Nevertheless, it does not change the fact that with Home, Facebook has
taken persistent data-gathering to a whole new level; wrapped in a
trendy cover that millions of Facebook users will want to try out. As if
what was on Facebook’s servers were not enough, this has the potential
to collect among other things, home addresses and whatnot.
At this point, we are presented with an ethical dilemma. There is no debate on whether Facebook Home presents itself as an increased threat to privacy. The Mumbai police’s recent decision to set up a ‘social-media lab’ to monitor the citizens of Mumbai through Facebook and Twitter, however, only compounds the dilemma.
The most common argument to the introduction of a new piece of
technology such as Facebook Home is: “If you don’t trust Facebook, you
wouldn’t install Home. Others obviously trust the company with their
data.. So what’s the harm? They should be allowed to do as they wish.”
At this point dilemma strikes. Should we, the tech community at large,
and those who understand the true privacy implications of Home, do
nothing? Is it fine because less than 10% of all people can avoid it?
(This is of course excluding the small group of people who truly
understand the implications involved in handing over a lot of your data
to Facebook and have no problem with it.)
Choo-choo!
To this, there are two trains of thought/answers which lead me to
believe that the time for the metaphorical ‘watching the world burn’ is
over and that direct intervention is necessary.
The first answer to the dilemma is that the nature of technology and
consequent monitoring has branched to a point that even if we leave it
to the public to continue about their own ways; it will endanger us
sooner or later. For instance, the Mumbai police department has now put
twenty of its finest to work by sitting down and monitoring ‘social
trends’.
If a friend were to tag me in anything that would be deemed
inappropriate by the infamous Section 66 A of the IT Act, I could no
longer take comfort in the anonymity of the social crowd so as to say.
There are police monitoring us after all – if ‘liking’ a status resulted
in police detention, why should be tagging without consent be any
different? Likes can also result without actual clicking – Facebook
viruses see to that. Therefore it is in my best interest to educate my
friend before he/she tags me.
Leave the bubble
The second answer is one of moral duty. Is it truly fine for things like
Facebook Home and Mumbai’s social lab to exist—just because less than
10% of all people can avoid it? Stepping outside the tech-bubble we so
deeply ensconce ourselves, let us take a look at the toolbar phenomena.
There are many people in the range of, let us say, 15 – 40 who are
completely unable to avoid installing browser toolbars. (A side note
here, browser toolbars are like little parasites, scuffing up everything
while bloating your Internet surfing.)
These are not dumb people, remember. They know that some of these
toolbars pass on viruses and are not really safe. But they are unable to
get rid of them, because they have no idea where to look, and even if
they did they wouldn’t be able to distinguish a safe program from an
unsafe one. To quote Forrest Gump— shit happens, even to the smartest
people. It is even worse when it happens to the more vulnerable parts of
the population, like our younger brothers or sisters, or to parents.
We cannot be complacent just because Home poses no threat to those who
understand it. It should bother us that we have the older population on
the Internet who has no idea of what they are getting onto—and a younger
generation that is increasingly growing up with the idea that there is
an ‘app’ that can be downloaded for all their problems.
Both these answers put together signal that Facebook needs no
apologists, what it does need is constant critique. Your personal
history, your friends, what your friends like, where you went to school,
where you graduated, where you began a relationship, your sexual
preferences.. all laid bare. True, in the best of times, it does not
matter whether the Government knows this. But do we live in those times?
We can no longer ask the Government for our privacy, we must take it back by defining it! It can only start if we make it so. Browser privacy? Use HTTPS Everywhere. Internet anonymity? Use Tor. SMS encryption? Use WhisperSystems. Digital currency? Bitcoin.
These are just tools, however. The real fight starts when we decide to
define the notion of privacy on the Internet and take it from there.
No comments:
Post a Comment