MWP2 Outline with Introduction Paragraph

INTRO

Online social networking has become a norm in today’s flowering technological prowess; socializing teens and corporations alike take care of their personal and professional business on sites where it is efficient to digitally connect and communicate effectively—but as the plethora of social networking sites expand, adding thousands of users daily, a new issue is becoming more and more debated—could our privacy, to both our personal and professional information, be at risk? It’s true that because of the recent and explosive expansion of online socialization that a vast amount of private information has become available digitally, a click away for the people that know their way around the internet, but perhaps it isn’t just strangers and ‘creepers’ that we have to worry about getting our information; according to one study, today’s online conditions have “made it necessary to consider the invasion of privacy by corporations” (Barnes 6).  Online ad generators that run marketing scams directly off of massive databanks of information harvested from social network users, given openly from the network administrators themselves—this has led to a newly posed question: even if you change your privacy settings so that only friends can see your information, should online social networks still be allowed to garner your information to their ad-generating comrades to redirect it back to you and your friends, and maybe even other people? People generally share not only photos of themselves, but also their hometown, birthday, e-mail, phone number, who they are friends with, and even where they are by address at given intervals of the day, giving a multitude of angles and precedents that social ad generators could use to their advantage, making it so advertisers “can co-opt the power of an individual's social network to target advertising and engage their audience” (Tucker 2).  So, stalking and harassing aside, who is at fault for online privacy infringements, what are possible resolutions, and who should be responsible for putting them into practice?

DEFINITION

SocialAd

Ad Generators

Terms of Agreement

Privacy Settings

LITERATURE REVIEW

*83% of facebook users say it “helps them interact… with friends” (Debatin 93)

            *“Only 69% of respondents indicated that they had actually changed their default privacy settings” (Debatin 93)

            *Predicted “Facebook users have a limited understanding of privacy settings

in social network services” and, consequently, will probably not even attempt to take advantage of their privacy settings options (Debatin 93)

            *“Social networking tools have become indespensible for teenagers, who often think their lives are private as long as their parents are not reading their journals (Barnes 4)

            *Limiting your privacy settings so that the information you post is “friends-only”, will, according to one study, exert “audience control over social network site disclosures” (Stutzman and Kramer-Duffield 2)

            *Whether someone generally goes “friends-only” without being prompted depends on several factors such as how many friends they have, what their educational setting is, and their purposes in using Facebook (Stutzman and Kramer-Duffield 6)

            *“Due to the persistent digital nature of Facebook, utterances that would normally go unrecorded are stored and replicated in the sociotechnical system” (Stutzman and Kramer-Duffield 8)

*“In particular, social networks will be able to exploit their considerable inherent network effects to enlarge their share of advertising dollar       (Tucker 24)

            *“Social norms also impact users’ choices to disclose or protect information (Strater and Lipford 115)

            *“Participants with private profiles reported that they had restricted their profiles due to previous privacy intrusions on either Facebook or MySpace”, including strangers obtaining either their phone number or e-mail, and persistently harassing a user until they had to permanently change their number or e-mail; even though they changed their privacy settings afterward, a strong indication that there was something in their  power that they could have done to prevent the intrusion, they still blame the social networks for letting such events happen (Strater and Lipford 116)

ARGUMENT/ANALYSIS/PROPOSAL

*edit rough draft*

CONCLUSION

*EDIT*      If there was this collaborative effort between stricter, more efficient privacy regulations by the social networking sites and the distinct awareness and restricted posting and availability of information on behalf of the users, both by not posting what they don’t want accessed and by changing their privacy settings to better suit their desires without infringing on their relationship-cultivating uses of the sites, then perhaps the endless game of blame-throwing would end and online privacy would no longer be an issue in an age where tools like networking can be rewarding and profitable if done correctly.

MWP2 Proposal Argument (Argument and Proposal sections) Rough Draft

            While claims are generally made in opposition to the social networking sites alone, it isn’t just the sites who are at fault; not only are users willing to share large amounts of their information online and then just expect a free site to keep it unexplainably safe from them, but most of them will not change their privacy settings upon making a profile, or even be willing to update their current settings (Debatin 93; Stutzman and Kramer Duffield 6).  Social networking cites, however, aren’t completely innocent; while they shouldn’t be expected to single-handedly keep everyone’s privacy locked away indefinitely from the exact people individuals don’t want accessing their information, their current privacy regulations are still not one-hundred percent user-friendly.  While social networking cites have close reigns on ad generators that target specific interests of one individual, even the administrators don’t know the extent of information available to databases that use “SocialAds”, which target a person’s friend-list, the interests of individuals on the friends list, and the person’s interests, cross-referencing the information to create a unique ad that mentions one’s friend and a mutual interest (Tucker  12).  If they don’t want to appear to be the bad guys in the ongoing debate, they should at least try to come up with new regulations in which they know how their users’ information is being used and exactly what information those users are comfortable with giving away: but can a user really give the consent for an ad generator to use a friend’s information, even if that friend has also agreed to the privacy policy of the social network?

In any case, online privacy is not an issue that is easily approached; however, according to one study, there are three potential ways to address an issue in online privacy: social, technical, and legal solutions (Barnes 7).  While the social solutions involve people taking it upon themselves to become educated on the extent of privacy regulations and the methods and functionality of ad generators and other groups that have access to personal information, technical and legal solutions require either schools and other official groups or organizations to try to educate people, or to have the social networks themselves take measures to avoid privacy leaks (Barnes 7-8).  But it would take a combined effort of at least two of those entities to truly make a difference.  If sites like Facebook stepped in to resolve issues such as ease of access and extent of information available to ad generators, by putting stricter regulations on the companies and corporations they allow to generate ads, made it possible for people to report ads if they felt they were infringing on a privacy agreement or accessing information their current privacy settings should not make available, and made the sign-up process include an essay response or quick quiz assuring that the person producing the profile was actually aware of what was going to happen to their private information and was assured, personally, what they would be comfortable with posting, it would be a large step forward.  But the sties can’t fix the problem single-handed; people would have to compliment this measure by taking it upon themselves to become educated, and, knowing that it’s the young people who generally end up the victims of privacy regulations on social networking sites, this is not likely to happen; that means that it will probably have to be a sponsored, non-profit campaign, much like the ones putting up meth awareness posters on the billboards on the side of interstates, and perhaps even the ones that are behind posting the non-intrusive ads on sites such as Facebook, that ultimately create some sort of program that gently but efficiently makes information on privacy and smart networking available to those who would otherwise suffer an invasion on their personal information.  If there was this collaborative effort between stricter, more efficient privacy regulations by the social networking sites and the distinct awareness and restricted posting and availability of information on behalf of the users, both by not posting what they don’t want accessed and by changing their privacy settings to better suit their desires without infringing on their relationship-cultivating uses of the sites, then perhaps the endless game of blame-throwing would end and online privacy would no longer be an issue in an age where tools like networking can be rewarding and profitable if done correctly.

(MWP2 Precis 5) Rhetorical Precis on "Strategies and Struggles with Privacy in an Online Social Networking Community"

In their article, "Strategies and Struggles with Privacy in an Online Social Networking Community", Katherine Strater and Heather Richter Lipford attempt to describe the recent social and cultural developments among youths in respect to online social networking and cyber-communications and how they are redefining young people's perspective of privacy, in order to establish a medium or means to effictively use those developments to strive for more positive and productive means of communication  and privacy maintenance in the future.  They first establish common privacy strategies encorporated by young people who do most of their casual socializing online, and then reconfigure their habits into more productive methods, giving advice on how to use social networking sites without breaching one's own privacy and accidentaly self-sabotaging.  They write in order to reveal the most productive and effective methods of online socializing and how it can either make or break future communication methods both professionally and casually.  They write for those who are interested in communications and privacy regulations on social networking sites.

Article Link: http://www.bcs.org/upload/pdf/ewic_hc08_v1_paper11.pdf

MLA Citation:

Strater, Katherine; Richer Lipford, Heather . Strategies and Struggles with Privacy in an Online Social 
        Networking Community. Department of Psychology/Department of Software and Information Systems,
        University of North Carolina at Charlotte, n.d. Web. 9 March 2012.


Annotation:
The article's rich coverage on resolutions for online privacy infringement allowed the formation of a more thorough and efficient proposal.

(MWP2 Precis 4) Rhetorical Precis on "Social Advertising"

In "Social Advertising", Catherine Tucker asserts that the method of social network-based advertising has proved to be one of the most effective methods in online advertisement in the last decade, and that even the social networks are uncertain of the extent of information available to the data banks in their quest to find ways to illicit responses from online consumers.  She first gives a brief explanation of how the ad generators target their consumers, and then she gives results from a conducted field experiment on the most common information taken, and what genders, ages, and interests they look for when trying to find the most responsive targets.  She writes in order to convey the common strategies, purposes, and effectiveness of social advertising and to show the extent of information being analyzed and how it effects the privacy of both the users of online social networks and the networks themselves.  Her intended audience are social network users or creators interested in the truth behind the ads appearing on the sites.

Article Link: http://www.isb.edu/isbweb/isbcms/faculty/upload/Doc1322012953.pdf

MLA Citation:

Tucker, Catherine. Social Advertising. MIT Sloan School of Management, Cambridge, MA (25 January
        2012): Web. 9 March 2012.


Annotation:
The article's thorough and definitive information on online ad generators and SocialAd online advertising supplied a series of quotes and citations that better defined and reviewed the advertising-centered branch of the online privacy infringement issue.

(MWP2 Precis 3) Rhetorical Precis on "Friends Only: Examining a Privacy-Enhancing Behavior on Facebook"

In Fred Stutzman and Jacob Kramer-Duffield's artcicle "Friends Only: Examining a Privacy-Enhancing Behavior on Facebook", Stutzman and Kramer-Duffield explore the average undergraduate's methods, views, and practices when it comes to online social networking, exploring perceived audiences and potential consequences, and ultimately suggesting a "friends-only audience" approach to networking.  They first describe how to go "friends only", and measures and benefits of doing so, and then explore, statistically, the difference between positive and negative posting, and how there are layers of audiences, each layer with a different expectancy to what they are looking for, and how those using social networking cites should either go friends-only, or be willing to only post things considered appropriate by the outermost layer, such as school faculty members, potential employers, family and legal figures.  They strive to develop a common understanding of the social repercussions of networking, and how students can take several different measures to reach a "friends-only" approach and dispel the common misconception that it is the social network's duty to keep people's information from those they do not want to view it, even though they have the power to do it themselves.  Their intended audience are those who use social networking sites and those who are involved or interested in the issue of online privacy.

Article Link: http://fredstutzman.com/tmp/Stutzman_CHI2010.pdf

MLA Citation:

Stutzman, Fred; Kramer-Duffield, Jacob. Friends Only: Examing a Privacy-Enhancing Behavior on 
        Facebook. School of Information and Life Science, University of North Caronlina at Chapel Hill, n.d.
        Web. 9 March 2012.


Annotation:
The article's definition of "friends-only" and description of different kinds of online privacy regulations and conditions under different privacy settings on online social networks helped to form a better-supported proposal.

Working Thesis for MWP2

Because of the rising number of claims that the insecure methods of information sharing on social networking sites, and of the majority of claims being made against the sites themselves as if they are to be held entirely accountable, there should be a collaborative effort from users of social networking sites and the network admins of said sites alike to distribute and make available prerequisite information on social networking privacy, and how the site plans to use and/or share personal information of its users with advocates and ad generators; people should take it upon themselves to become aware of this information, and sites should provide a disclaimer or perhaps even a quiz to make sure someone knows exactly what they are signing up for when they join a site.

Note: the previous post is a precis on an article that supports my claim that most of the blame currently being generated for online privacy is directed at the social networking cites.

(MWP2 Precis 2) Precis on "A Privacy Paradox: Social Networking in the United States"

In her article "A Privacy Paradox: Social Networking in the United States", Susan B. Barnes redirects the hatred and blame being directed at social networking sites toward the teenagers and young adults who use them, claiming that they sign up for the sites and publish personal information, and are then outraged when peers, parents, and the teachers and faculty from their schools see it and they are to suffer the consequences.  She first gives examples of the kinds of private information generally posted by members of social networking sites, and then continues to give pros and cons and establish the differences between social and private information, and how the line between the two is become hazed as this generations technology continually advances; she concludes by answering an earlier established question of whether or not "we actually have privacy in this day and age, digitally", and how she thinks it will take collaborative effort, maybe more so from the users' side, to truly establish cyber-privacy.  Her purpose is to convey that the social networking sites are not evil, and are not doing a single thing they don't tell users they will do when they sign up, and that people need to be more educated on what kinds of information they should or shouldn't, or even want, to put up on their profile.  Her intended audience includes both scholars interested in the issue of online privacy, users of social networks, and those involved directly with the ongoing battle between upset users and online social network admins.

Article Link: http://www.mendeley.com/research/a-privacy-paradox-social-networking-in-the-united-states/#

MLA Citation:

Barnes, Susan B. "A Privacy Paradox: Social Networking in the United States". First Monday 11.9 (2006):
         11-15. Web. 5 March 2012.

Annotation:
This article's coverage on interviews with particular sections of often-disgruntled users such as students and parents/teachers on online social network supplied a means to put a face on the group that is causing the online privacy issue to get out of hand, giving quotes that summarize the issue as it applies to the majority of those involved.

Zoom in on Online Pravicy in Association with Social Networking

Most people are unaware of the extent to which people have access to their personal information on social networking sites, and how that information is being processed.  Most of the information, such as personal interests, favorite movies, games and TV shows, and even the town you live in or the place you are hanging out for the afternoon is given to a multitude of online data processors or individuals and re-routed straight back to your homepage for targeted marketing and other purposes, being stored in databases by people worldwide; most people think to blame the social networking cites, even though it was their own choice to create an account and share the information, and they should consider issues such as this before signing up for a site, and definitely take a portion of the blame for any negative repercussions.  Nearly everyone in this day and age have created a Facebook or a MySpace or a twitter, or even a YouTube or Google account—all of them have at least some personal information on their profile, and all of it is available to a multitude of people if they know where to look.  A combination of people willing to share extremely personal information and the social networking sites not giving a 'disclaimer' of sorts telling people exactly how much of their information will be free game for advertisements, scammers, or even hackers or stalkers has caused social networking privacy to become a major public issue.  People have tried to protest Facebook several times, but it isn't protest that will solve the problem--it's not just Facebook that has to change, but people need to realize that if they're willing to type down such things as personal interests, birth dates, or the locations they are currently at every ten minutes, people other than their friends will be able to see it, and if they don't like it then they shouldn't post it.  If people don't begin to realize the true core of the problem, internet censorship will be soon be considered the cause, and the functionality and availability of online information could be at stake because of the misinformation of these sites' users.  Users should educate themselves and be aware of what personal information they are providing to the sites and who can see it—they should be aware that posting something controversial online is like saying something controversial into a microphone in a large room: you shouldn't be angry at the microphone for being turned on, you should be angry at yourself for being dumb enough to speak into it in the first place; also, social networking sites should begin giving a disclaimer, something much more thorough than a fine-print, read-it-if-you-want, agree to terms and conditions page—they should have people be tested, asking them if they actually know exactly how open their personal information is to become, and exactly how many people are going to have access to it and who they are, so only those who are comfortable saying everything into the microphone actually join the site.

Rhetorical Precis on Good Reasons Chapter 13

In Chapter 13 of  Good Reasons  by Lester Faigley and Jack Selzer, "Proposal Arguments", the authors describe the constituent elements, functionality, and writing process behind proposal arguments, and provide examples of proposal arguments written by professionals and students.  They initially describe what a proposal argument is, discussing how they work and how their theses differ from normal argumentative papers--then they give a step-by-step writing process for proposal arguments, topping it off with a professional proposal argument and then a student example.  Faigley and Selzer intend to describe the purpose, procedure, and layout associated with both writing and reading proposal arguments when taking rhetoric-based classes.  Their intended audience is students in English classes that require them to write a proposal argument as part of the curriculum. 

(MWP2 Precis 1) Rhetorical Precis on "Facebook and Online Privacy: Attitudes, Behaviors, and Unintended Consequences"

In "Facebook and Online Privacy: Attitudes, Behaviors, and Unintended Consequences", Bernhard Debatin, Jannette P. Lovejoy, Ann-Kathrin Horn and Brittany N. Hughes investigate Facebook users' perception and awareness of online privacy issues by conducting a survey on over a hundred undergraduates and following up with eight face-to-face interviews with some of the surveyed individuals in an attempt to show that, even though most users of online social networks like Facebook think they know about privacy issues and take measures to avoid being exploited, do not usually know the extent of privacy invasion on the internet. They first review the questions asked in their survey, which included time spent on facebook and activities performed, as well as insight on whether they felt these activities were harmful to their online privacy; they followed up with a recap of their eight interviews, and then closed the paper with a discussion on what mistakes those in the interviews made and how they could be avoided by other facebook users.  They intend to disclose common habits and behaviors displayed by members of online social networks, and which ones can be harmful or dangerous to ones personal information and privacy even if they seem harmless at first glance.  Their intended audience are those interested in the topic of online security and privacy, or online social network members in general.

Article Link: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01494.x/full

MLA Citation:
Debatin, Bernhard; Lovejoy, Jannette P.; Horn, Ann-Kathrin; Hughes, Brittany N. "Facebook and Online
        Privacy: Attitudes, Behaviors, and Unintended Consequences". Journal of Computer-Mediated 
        Communication 15.1 (17 November 2009): 83-108. Web. 2 March 2012.

Annotation:
This article's thorough coverage of the average social network user's understanding of privacy settings and networks' terms was used in order to establish points that redirect the confrontation and blame away from the social networking sites and toward the users and general online ignorance.